Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Community and Youth Facilities

Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants have been made available to contribute towards the repair and construction of local community and youth facilities in Wales. [25632]

The Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. William Hague): A total of £472, 000 is being made available under the voluntary youth services, village halls and community centres programme for 1996–97, and a further £1.9 million from the strategic development scheme.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these grants are a first-class investment in sustaining and promoting community life across Wales? Will he take every possible step to ensure that the public are aware of the grants?

Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend draws attention to an important subject. Since 1994, more than £9.5 million pounds has been provided by the Welsh Office for youth and community projects. In addition, nearly £12 million of national lottery funds has been allocated to this subject. For the future, the Rural Wales White Paper confirmed that changes would be considered to existing grant schemes to assist local community facilities, and we are also studying what help and advice is available to local groups which run village halls and similar facilities.

Mr. Martyn Jones: The Secretary of State must be aware of the huge increase in crime and drug abuse that has, I am sad to say, occurred in my area. While grants are all very well, does he agree that we need regular revenue funding proposals to tackle drug abuse?

Mr. Hague: Grants are an important part of the fight against drug abuse, as are the efforts of the police throughout Wales. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has launched a campaign against drug and alcohol abuse, and we will be working on that and providing further details in the coming weeks. I look forward to working with all authorities in Wales in pushing that campaign forward.

General Practitioners

Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will conduct a review into the current proposals for GPs' out-of-hours services (a) in Wales and (b) in Rhymney. [25633]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): The operation of the new arrangements in Wales is being monitored by the Welsh Office. My right hon. Friend and I have no plans to review the proposals for the Rhymney area as that is a matter for the local health authority.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that patients will need to travel 26 miles—possibly at the dead of night—to the new out-of-hours service? Given that Ministers are helping to fund the schemes, should not they use their influence and support the overwhelming opposition of the local community council and patients in the areas concerned to such a service, and ensure that the voices of the patients of Rhymney are heeded?

Mr. Richards: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, as he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in March to support the community health council. I understand that the health authority is looking at the issue.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the additional flexibility of the GP fundholding system has meant that a better service is available to patients in both Wales and England?

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. GP fundholders are at the forefront of our policy of primary care.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that while short-changing patients in Rhymney, Gwent health authority's top management are looking after themselves very well, such as in the recent appointments scandal? Does he agree that the recent 22.5 per cent. increase voted by the directors of the new UHW trust in Cardiff shows that our health service is a bonanza for bureaucrats while penny-pinching patients?

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman, as always, is completely wrong. We are spending more than £2.2 billion on health services in Wales in this financial year, and some £2.4 million on the measure referred to by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) My right hon. Friend and I are concerned about the problem in Gwent, and he has asked to be kept fully informed as to how the health authority proposes to resolve it.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the prospects for manufacturing industry in Wales. [25634]

Mr. Hague: The Government's economic policies are delivering sustainable growth with low inflation. Wales is benefiting from this good performance. In 1995,


manufacturing output in Wales grew at double the United Kingdom rate and the prospects for manufacturing industry in Wales are excellent.

Mr. Jones: May I invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit RAF Sealand in my constituency, where there are at least 1, 600 highly skilled and very productive jobs, and where the work force is highly co-operative? How can he help us defeat the predatory intentions of companies such as Brown and Root of the United States and GEC, which seek under the umbrella of market testing to get the contract for the work that RAF Sealand now does? Does he agree that in the Falklands war—he may just remember it—and the Gulf war, RAF Sealand was magnificent and that if there were to be another such challenge, RAF Sealand would need to be under RAF leadership? What we want at Deeside, and what we want the right hon. Gentleman's help to achieve, is for the in-house bid to win. Will he help us?

Mr. Hague: I remember the Vietnam war. I am older than the hon. Gentleman thinks, even if I was in short trousers. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about RAF Sealand. He has expressed it to me before. The Government believe that competition is the best way to ensure value for money. That is the reason for the market test proposals. We are conscious of the anxieties which the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed. That is one reason why the market test at Sealand is being carried out within the framework of Government ownership.
Whether the in-house bid or a commercial contractor wins the competition—the in-house bid should have a strong chance of doing so, given the expertise of the work force—Sealand will continue to provide a broad capability. We expect the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to apply and to protect the interests of the work force.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State join me in sending good wishes for its campaign for manufacturing jobs to the Wales Trades Union Congress, which meets at its annual conference at Llandudno later this week? Is he entirely happy at the recent news that Ronson is transferring petrol lighter production from Korea to Gwent, apparently on the ground that Welsh workers can now undercut Korean workers by 20 per cent? Ronson's chief executive claims that as Korea is being transformed into a world-class economic player and home of international giants, it can now dispense with such low-wage jobs. Does the Secretary of State feel proud that after 17 years of Conservative Government, all that he can offer Wales is Korean cast-offs?

Mr. Hague: I am delighted that the TUC is launching a campaign for manufacturing jobs. Since December 1985 manufacturing employment in Wales has grown more than in any other United Kingdom region. I am sure that the TUC will want to campaign for the policies of Her Majesty's Government that have produced that particular success.

Mr. Morgan: Since when?

Mr. Hague: Since 1985.
The particular case to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) refers has been misrepresented in the media in the past few days. Wages were not the only

factor that helped to draw companies to Wales. One of the very powerful additional factors was the non-wage labour costs, which in this country are £18 for every £100 of wages and in other parts of Europe are between £32 and £44 for every £100 of wages. So we must look at all the factors that draw jobs and investment to Wales. Those factors taken together are drawing jobs and investment to Wales and I want that to continue.

Investment and Job Creation

Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the follow-up actions he proposes to the meetings held with the hon. Member for Swansea, East, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and local authority leaders from the Swansea area on investment and job creation in the area. [25635]

Mr. Hague: On 17 April I welcomed the opportunity to hear the views of the local authorities on how economic development in their areas can be further strengthened. I heard the views of the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend at an earlier meeting. I will continue to encourage the Welsh Development Agency to meet the targets that I have set for securing inward investment projects in the more westerly area of Wales—south, mid and north. My Department will also do all that it can to encourage the growth of indigenous Welsh companies.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that at these two meetings the message came across loud and clear that although the representatives of west Wales are glad that Cardiff bay is prospering, there is a feeling of anger and unfairness at the imbalances that are being further financed by the Welsh Office? For example, west Wales has 25 per cent. of the population of Wales but in 1994–95 it had only 15 per cent. of the projects, 13 per cent. of the jobs and a mere 5 per cent. of the investments. What specifically is the Secretary of State proposing to do to get over this? Will he ask the Welsh Development Agency to publish the targets? What will he do about the regional benefits?

Mr. Hague: Government policy applies equally to all parts of Wales, including westerly parts of Wales. The area about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned benefits from assisted area status and other Government projects. There are a lot of specific actions that I will continue to take to try to assist the economy in the Swansea area. It is important for the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency to work with the local authorities, and I was pleased with their willingness to do so at the meeting that I had with them.
I will continue to expect the WDA to meet the targets to which I referred earlier. I shall continue to encourage inward investors, on every possible occasion, to look at a wide variety of the sites that may be available to them in all parts of Wales before deciding where to make their investment. The best thing for the Swansea area is for us to have an economy that continues to grow and prosper. As long as we maintain our current policies, that is what is likely to happen.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not co-operation between the Government and local government one of the many ways


in which considerable success can be achieved? What does my right hon. Friend think of the recent announcement of the Welsh Local Government Association that it will refuse to meet him in the future?

Mr. Hague: I thought that that was a rather strange and silly announcement. Last week I was surprised to see the press release from the Welsh Local Government Association, which said:
Hague is on his own and we will boycott future meetings with the Secretary of State.
Two days later I was equally surprised to receive a letter from the chairman of the Welsh Local Government Association, which said:
I and other leaders of the Welsh Local Government Association are very keen to discuss your intentions for 1997–98 with you at the earliest possible opportunity. This is too important a matter to delay a meeting.
I shall consider that request for a meeting.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that west Wales—that is, Swansea, Llanelli and the surrounding area—has considerable expertise in the car industry, particularly in manufacturing engineering? However, despite that, there has been no major inward investment in the area in the past 10 years. One belief is that the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency are missing out every time to the Invest in Britain Bureau and to the Department of Trade and Industry which have managed to achieve investment in the north-east of England. What is he going to do about that?

Mr. Hague: The WDA has turned in a great achievement over the past year. As all hon. Members know, it is more difficult to persuade inward investors to go to the more westerly parts of Wales because they are geographically further away from the main centres of population in the United Kingdom. As I have already explained, there are a number of things that we can do about that—and we are already doing them.

Inward Investment

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about inward investment into Wales. [25636]

Mr. Hague: The Welsh Development Agency recorded more than 120 inward investment projects for 1995–96, which promised more than 12, 000 new and safeguarded jobs and investment of more than £970 million. These are excellent results that include Ford's £340 million expansion at Bridgend, and Newport Wafer-Fab's £230 million expansion near Newport.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that his success in attracting new industry to Wales is due to the fact that we have not signed up to the social chapter, that we do not have a national minimum wage and that we do not have corporate taxes? Will the people of Wales not contrast my right hon. Friend's success in fostering new investment with the complaint by the shadow Secretary of State that he has been too successful in getting industry from Korea?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right—and he made his point so well that he even drew a cheer from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). That must be something of a first in this context.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, one of the most attractive aspects of the United Kingdom for inward investors is our flexible labour market. In that regard, there is a considerable contrast between the UK and other parts of the European Community. The awkward, tragic part of Labour's policy is that, in the name of trade union rights, Labour would deny jobs to thousands of people.

Mr. Wigley: I apologise for my late arrival, which was again due to problems with trains.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although there has been a modicum of success in attracting inward investment into the M4 corridor in south-east Wales and into parts of north-east Wales, considerable difficulty is being experienced in attracting inward investment and other projects to western parts of Wales, including the old county of Dyfed and Gwynedd? Given that Ireland has had enormous success in attracting inward investment to an area even further west, how does the Secretary of State intend to change the strategy in order to overcome the clear problems that exist in west Wales?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman did the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency a bit of an injustice in saying that we had enjoyed a "modicum" of success. The figure that I have announced today—12, 000 new and safeguarded jobs last year—exceeds the target set for the WDA, and we should all congratulate it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is more difficult to persuade inward investors to go to the westerly parts of Wales. He will have heard me say that in response to earlier questions. The answer is for the Government, the WDA and local authorities to work together to identify sites and attract investors, and to ensure that inward investors consider all potential sites, including those in more westerly parts of Wales. I am very much committed to taking all those steps.

Mr. Hain: Why, under the present Government, has there been no inward investment in Neath?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me refer to the huge inward investment that has taken place in many parts of Wales. I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Neath, he will want to portray an image of this country and his constituency that is as friendly as possible to enterprise and the promotion of business, and no doubt that will be of great help.

GP Fundholders

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner fundholders there are in Wales; and what percentage this figure represents of all general practitioner fundholders. [25637]

Mr. Richards: Fifty per cent. of Welsh general practitioners are fundholders, covering about 52 per cent of the population. That involves 863 practitioners in 210 practices. The Welsh Office does not hold information on comparative English, Northern Ireland or Scottish data.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that record, but does he agree that the Government's purpose in Wales should now be to press further and


harder in their attempt to make more practices fundholding? Fundholders have achieved success both in the delivery of service to patients and, more particularly—we hear complaints from the Opposition about this—in reducing expense and bureaucracy by striking tougher contracts, causing trusts to reduce their costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should now trumpet the idea that the Labour party will get rid of fundholders and destroy the advances that we have made?

Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. GP fundholders are at the forefront of quality, improvement and new services, in particular in reducing waiting times and improving outreach services—for example, the provision of consultants. He is also correct to draw attention to the dangers of Labour party policies. New Labour is no more than a wooden horse called Tony the phoney pony, whose mission is to deceive the British people into believing that the marauding socialists have disappeared.

Mr. Llew Smith: As I am sure the Minister knows, in Blaenau Gwent we have some of the worst health problems that have been experienced in any parliamentary constituency in England or Wales. We want more doctors rather than fewer. Would the Minister care to comment on Gwent health authority's decision to remove one of the only two doctors in Cwm, and will he support the local community in demanding that the health authority reverse that decision and, if it refuses, that its members resign?

Mr. Richards: We are aware that Gwent health authority is about to remove a doctor which, of course, is a matter for it. The number of general practitioners in Wales has gone up by 28 per cent. since 1979. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, between 31 December 1994 and 31 December last year, the number of people waiting more than sixth months for a first out-patient appointment fell by 90 per cent. and the number waiting more than 12 months for in-patient day case treatment has fallen by 17 per cent.

Roads

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk road have been laid since that year. [25638]

Mr. Hague: Since 1979, total spending by central Government on the roads programme in Wales is more than £2.9 billion, including £510 million transport grant. Twenty-eight miles of motorway and 167 miles of trunk road have been completed or improved. Eight major improvement schemes totalling another 28 miles are under construction.

Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable progress has been made in improving the motorway and trunk road network in Wales since 1979 and that that has been of great help in attracting inward investment to Wales?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. One of the additional attractions for inward investors, on top of the

flexible labour market, the work of the Welsh Development Agency and the lower non-wage labour costs to which I referred, is the improving infrastructure in Wales. We have done much to improve the strategic east-west routes in Wales. That work is continuing with the proposals that I have published for the M4 and for the A465 Heads of the Valleys road. It makes a tremendous difference.

Dr. Howells: Does the Secretary of State recognise the chronic traffic congestion on the A470, the main north-south route in Wales, especially at its most southerly point, where the Coryton interchange is subject to constant long traffic jams that do nothing for the competitiveness of industry in Cardiff or my constituency? Can he confirm that the Welsh Office has plans to bypass that interchange and say which route the bypass will take?

Mr. Hague: I have no announcement today for the hon. Gentleman, but I will, of course, consider his representations—and all representations—on the subject. We plan to start one scheme on the A470 in the coming year but I shall be happy to give him further details in writing if he wishes.

Road Warning Signs

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to clarify road warning signs in Wales; and if he will make a statement.[25639]

Mr. Richards: Road warning signs are covered by the Traffic Signs (Welsh and English Language Provisions) Regulations and General Directions 1985 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994. The Welsh Office is developing proposals for public consultation on the updating of the 1985 regulations.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that I am a frequent visitor to the land of my mothers. Indeed, I was there on Saturday night when I had the honour of addressing the dinner of the Welsh National Young Conservatives. I shall be visiting Wales on many other occasions, as I received several invitations after that. Is my hon. Friend aware that my and other visitors' journeys to Wales are jeopardised by the warning road signs on Welsh roads? When one approaches such signs quickly, it is often difficult to see information in Welsh or English. As he has said that he is reconsidering the format of signs and having English signs in one colour and Welsh signs in another, will he be consistent in having one language above the other, whichever way round it might be?

Mr. Richards: The Bowen committee in 1970 concluded that there was no evidence that bilingual road signs adversely affect road safety. I had heard from the national press that my hon. Friend had found his way past the bilingual signs to Cardiff and made a brilliant speech to a galaxy of young Conservatives. We are looking forward to having them with us after the next general election instead of the deadwood of the Opposition.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what talks he has had with representatives of the farming and meat industry in Wales concerning BSE; and if he will make a statement.[25640]

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), and I have met representatives of the farming and meat industry on a number of occasions and my hon. Friend met representatives of the abattoir industry and Welsh Food Promotions Ltd. on 17 April. My hon. Friend is today attending the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, even though the carcase disposal scheme for cull cattle was due to start today, there are as yet no licensed abattoirs and there are no designated centres for collection yet? The farmers in Wales are confused and angry that the Government's inaction and incompetence are clearly the main reasons why the beef ban still remains. Three weeks after the European Union agreed to pay for the scheme, there is no sign of it being implemented.

Mr. Hague: The 30-month scheme will start this week, as was intended—it is likely to start around the middle of the week. It has been necessary to have an extensive consultation process—the industry would not have wanted it any other way. It is a complicated scheme and it is important that it commands confidence and general support. Our priority is to restore market confidence at home and abroad, and we shall continue to do that, in frequent and close consultation with the industry in Wales.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers who are privileged to be Welsh use Oswestry market? Is it his judgment that the Government's slaughter programme—covering cull cows and other categories—consigns to death and incineration an enormous number of cattle that show no sign of BSE? How does he think that that will restore public confidence in beef eating?

Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend will know that many of the actions that the Government are taking are based on scientific recommendations. In the case of the scheme that my right hon. Friend mentioned, the Government are going further than the scientific recommendations—indeed, that is the cause of his anxiety. It is clear from what scientists have said to us that BSE is most likely to occur in older cattle, so the removal from the food chain of cattle of 30 months and older is a confidence-building measure—it was specifically asked for by the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I congratulate the Secretary of State on acceding to representations from Opposition parties for a Welsh Office ministerial level representative to attend today's meeting of the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg, which is good news. Farmers are extremely worried about the delay in the implementation of the slaughter policy scheme.
I shall remind the Secretary of State of two fair questions posed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). First, when will we be told about the designated collection points, bearing in mind the geographical difficulty of taking animals to those points in many parts of rural Wales? Secondly, how many abattoirs in Wales have been licensed for the procedure? It is crucial that there should be no further delay in giving the farmers the information that they need so that the schemes can be fully implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Hague: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for farmers and others in the industry to know further details of the schemes as soon as possible. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is better for the schemes to be introduced properly than to be introduced in such haste that they do not work properly. Officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office are working hard, in consultation with the industry, to ensure that all the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks is given as soon as possible. They will continue working extremely hard until that information is available.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State's answers have no credibility. He said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) that the scheme would be operating mid week. He has just said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) that he hopes to be able to make the announcements. How can he expect the agricultural industry and associated industries in Wales to respond to a scheme that is due to start on Wednesday or Thursday this week if he has not even taken the basic steps of identifying the collection centres and licensing the abattoirs? His answers have no credibility.
The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand that the Government's confusion and delay in handling the BSE issue is one of the reasons why they are now viewed with such distrust and derision by the country at large. Does he seriously expect co-operation from Europe in lifting the export ban when domestic policy is in such a shambles and when the Foreign Secretary is writing around soliciting individual Cabinet members to produce schemes to disrupt the Union? Is it not the case that Ministers are now too busy appeasing warring factions within the Conservative party to provide effective and decisive government? Why on earth should the country's vital economic interests be sacrificed because of internal wrangling in the Conservative party?

Mr. Hague: It is a bit rich for Labour Members to criticise the Government over the BSE issue when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) did so much wanton damage to the beef industry. The group that is greeted with the most derision and distrust by farmers comprises one or two Opposition Members who have performed in the same way as the hon. Lady.
The hon. Gentleman would not want us to carry through the process without consulting the industry closely, and I am sure that he would not want it done in such haste that it did not work properly. That is why the consultations have been carried out.

Public Transport

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to encourage a fully integrated public transport system in Wales; and if he will make a statement.[25641]

Mr. Hague: Planning policy guidance to be issued soon will encourage local authorities to develop public transport facilities. I will also publish a transport policy statement later in the year.

Mr. Llwyd: That is, at least, a fairly encouraging answer. The Minister referred earlier to the £2.9 billion that is to be spent on roads in Wales. Would not some of that money be better spent providing a fully integrated public transport system? When, if ever, will the Government take notice of the Welsh Affairs Committee report, which suggested that investment should be pumped into the railways to enable someone to travel from the north to the south of Wales in three and a half hours? When will we have a proper transport authority in Wales in order to ensure that the public transport system is attractive—the current system is no use to anyone?

Mr. Hague: It is clearly important to continue to develop transport infrastructure in Wales. It is important also that, wherever possible, people have a choice of means of transport. As we have discussed already this afternoon, we have improved road infrastructure and we have provided substantial assistance to the railways throughout our time in office. Air transport—at least at Cardiff Wales international airport, with its enhanced passenger throughput—has also improved in recent years.
We must continue to improve all those forms of transport while taking account of how to protect the environment. When I put together my policy statement later in the year, I shall consider all the representations made to me—including those from the hon. Gentleman.

Retail Developments

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to curb the growth of large out-of-town retail developments.[25642]

Mr. Hague: I shall issue shortly planning guidance recognising the importance of town centres, including a strong retail base, and encouraging development within town centres rather than at out-of-town sites.

Mr. Sweeney: In welcoming that statement, I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for visiting Cowbridge and for making an excellent speech at the Bear hotel on Saturday. During his visit, my right hon. Friend no doubt walked around Culverhouse Cross and saw for himself the congestion that is caused by out-of-town retail developments. I ask him to bear that in mind in bringing forward his proposals.

Mr. Hague: I have seen a great deal of Culverhouse Cross and I was pleased also to visit the Bear hotel on Saturday. We shall set out a sequential test for new development in the new guidance: town centre sites where available, then edge-of-centre sites and, only when those

sites are unavailable, out-of-town sites. We shall also state that out-of-town food stores should not be allowed if they are likely to lead to the loss of general food retailing in the centres of smaller towns.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply, but we shall withhold our full congratulations until we have seen the details. Can he tell us the reason for the wasted years of the Wokingham regime? Was the change of mind due to his own policy initiative or has he sacked someone in the Welsh Office?

Mr. Hague: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is withholding his full congratulations, but I look forward to receiving them in due course. In pursuing and putting together the planning policy guidance that will be published shortly, I have been developing the thinking of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and largely continuing what he originally intended. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the guidance when it is published.

Orimulsion

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the net effect on local employment in Pembrokeshire if orimulsion is used as proposed in the production of power.[25643]

Mr. Richards: None.

Mr. Hughes: Well, I suggest that the Minister should. Will he reflect on the fact that, if the current plans for an orimulsion plant in Pembrokeshire—which I understand are waiting for one final authorisation—go ahead, although the prospect is presented as advantageous because it may produce a few jobs, there is a wide general view that the disadvantages environmentally and in terms of tourism of that beautiful part of south-west Wales having at its heart an orimulsion plant will grossly outweigh any short-term small employment advantages? Will the Minister undertake to carry out a full proper employment and environmental assessment on the economy of Pembrokeshire?

Mr. Richards: The application for consent to burn orimulsion at the Pembroke power station is still under consideration by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Until my right hon. Friend has received the views of all the regulatory authorities, no decisions will be made, including whether there is a need for a public inquiry.

Mr. Rogers: Surely everyone recognises that orimulsion is one of the dirtiest fuels that is available for combustion in power stations and contains an enormous amount of heavy metal toxic material compared with other fuels. In view of the recent disaster that has halved the income of the people of Pembrokeshire from tourism—reducing it by some £100 million—what


proposals do the Government have to compensate people for that loss? What proposals do they have to cut the pollution caused by the burning of that dirty fuel?

Mr. Richards: My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Sea Empress disaster, in which case I cannot possibly comment until the report of the marine accident investigation branch is published.

Mr. Dafis: May I emphasise that, unlike the Labour party in Pembrokeshire, my party supports the demand for a full public inquiry into the orimulsion application? As well as urging the President of the Board of Trade to set up a public inquiry, the Welsh Office should consider what longer-term employment opportunities might be created in Pembrokeshire through a proper energy conservation programme. Is not that the way ahead? What is the Welsh Office doing to ensure that the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 is implemented in Wales as soon as possible so that the jobs can be created and environmental gains made?

Mr. Richards: As I said a moment ago, the decision on a public inquiry will not be made until all the facts are available. With regard to jobs in that part of the world, the hon. Gentleman knows that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken a close interest in the west Wales task force which, I believe, was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt). We are conscious of the particular economic problems of the area and are doing our utmost to attract new investment.

Male Unemployment

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for male unemployment in Newport and Wales at the latest available date and expressed in percentage terms.[25644]

Mr. Richards: In March 1996, the unadjusted number of males on the claimant unemployment count in the Newport travel-to-work area was 5, 977. That is 10.6 per cent. of the male work force. The corresponding figures for Wales were 83, 039 and 11.2 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister concerned about the huge disparity between male and female unemployment inasmuch as many more men are out of work because the jobs lost in heavy industry were never replaced? Does not that suggest that the Government's jobs policy, far from being the success that they claim, is a huge disaster?

Mr. Richards: On the contrary, most of the jobs in the traditional heavy industries of south Wales have been replaced. In the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, unemployment fell by 221 in the 12 months to March this year. Since 1990, 11 plants have opened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency with 502 jobs gained. There are 10 foreign-owned manufacturing plants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency employing 1, 875 people. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop being a Job's comforter.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on out-patient and in-patient waiting lists (a) in Wales and (b) in the Cynon Valley.[25645]

Mr. Richards: Hospital waiting lists have fallen significantly in Wales recently. In the calendar year 1995, the number of out-patients waiting for a first appointment fell 14 per cent. while the number waiting for admission for treatment in hospital fell 9 per cent.
Separate figures are not available for the Cynon Valley, but the Merthyr and Cynon Valley unit, now the North Glamorgan NHS trust, reported a fall in out-patient waiting lists of an impressive 36 per cent. in 1995. The fall in the in-patient and day case waiting list was 3 per cent. To put that last figure into perspective, I should add that, currently, no patient has to wait longer than 18 months for admission to the trust for treatment.

Mrs. Clwyd: That is not quite as splendid as it sounds. More than 2, 000 people in the Merthyr and Cynon Valley area have been waiting more than one year for admission to hospital, and some of them are in considerable discomfort and distress. Is that situation due to the fact that 2, 500 beds have disappeared from Wales since 1990 and that hospital consultants spend much of their time re-admitting people to hospital who should never have been discharged in the first place—but were, because beds were not available?

Mr. Richards: I wish that the hon. Lady would stop knocking the national health service—just as her colleagues do—thereby trying to undermine morale in the NHS. Of all Opposition Members, the hon. Lady probably knocks most. I wish also that the hon. Lady would give the new North Glamorgan NHS trust a chance, given that it has been in existence only a few days and I have only recently appointed a chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Export Control

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Attorney-General what prosecutions have been initiated against alleged breaches of export control law regarding sales to Iraq or Iran since the publication of the Scott report.[25661]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I am informed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise that no prosecutions have been commenced in relation to export licence violations to Iran or Iraq since the publication of the Scott report.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister comment on the statement on page 851 of volume II of the Scott report:
If it is right, and I think it is, that Government policy on exports to Iraq was to some extent undermined by the use of Jordan as a diversionary route, the decision that that was a price that was worth paying in order to preserve the political advantages"—

Madam Speaker: Order. I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was quoting. In Question Time,


hon. Members should not quote directly, but paraphrase. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do so—or give an
indication of the matter to which he is referring—and I am sure that the Minister will respond.

Mr. Smith: Does the Minister think that it is right that third countries should be used by military exporters to circumvent the rules on arms exports?

The Attorney-General: No, that is most unlikely to be right—but the part that it plays in any individual prosecution will depend on the facts.

Sentencing

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals he has made against unduly lenient sentences.[25662]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): Since 1989, 294 cases have been referred in England and Wales, and 15 have been referred in Northern Ireland. Twenty-two of those cases were subsequently withdrawn. Of the cases heard to date by the Court of Appeal, 85 per cent. have resulted in an increase in sentence.

Mr. Marshall: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which demonstrates the irresponsibility of those who opposed the introduction of that power? His answer will be warmly welcomed by the many people who believe that some judges no longer sit on this planet.

The Solicitor-General: To convert my hon. Friend's sentiment into concrete cases, 201 persons whose sentences have been increased would have escaped justice had the Opposition got their way. Among the persons who would have escaped justice are those who have committed crimes of manslaughter, rape, robbery and others of the most serious crimes in the criminal calender.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman congratulates himself too much, may I ask him how many of those cases relate to rape? There is very worrying evidence that sentencing in such cases is becoming lighter and that fewer people are sent for trial than was the case even five years ago.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Lady is mistaken in suggesting that sentences for rape have fallen; the reverse is the case. Since the guideline case of R v. Billam, sentences for rape have increased quite markedly. The starting point for sentencing in such cases is five years, in cases in which there is one or more aggravating features the starting point is eight years; in the worst cases, double figure sentences are reached. I can tell the hon. Lady that we have referred 31 cases of rape since the jurisdiction was conferred on us, which is 11 per cent. of the total. Rape cases are the fourth most likely type of case to be referred by us. The most likely cases to be referred are robbery, those under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and death caused by driving. Rape comes somewhere down the list.

Mr. John Morris: The Solicitor-General will be aware of the Home Secretary's concern that the actual term

served in prison is too lenient. Does the Solicitor-General agree with Lord Justice Rose's view that there is "tangle and confusion" in court sentencing powers, a tangle that flows directly from—and as recently as—the Government's Criminal Justice Act 1991? Has the Attorney-General been consulted by the Home Secretary about his determination to reduce judges' discretion and to compel Them to impose minimum sentences? Will he tell the House what are the Attorney-General's views?

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, indeed, be off this planet if he takes the view that the vast majority of the British public are not completely behind my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the proposals that he has introduced. In his remarks, Lord Justice Rose was referring to the impact of sentencing provisions on a juvenile case at a particular time. Those provisions are no longer in force.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is it right that one of those "tangles" was sorted out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and that the most important action that can be taken to ensure that unnecessarily lenient sentences are corrected is to adopt the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—particularly in the sphere of rape, to stop those who rape repeatedly from raping again until such time as they are fit to be released into society?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. We have referred a number of rape cases in which the defendant has raped once before, has been given a substantial term of imprisonment, has been released and, before long, has committed a further rape. In some such cases, the defendant has been punished by a further determinate sentence. It would be quite unrealistic to view such a defendant as being safe to be released into the community on a particular day but, under current sentencing provisions, there is nothing that can be done about it. Surely something should be done to put that matter right.

Criminal Prosecutions

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Attorney-General what progress is being made in achieving a higher level of criminal prosecutions.[25664]

The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are working together on a number of initiatives to bring the right cases promptly to court. They include the introduction of further charging standards, guidance on case preparation and measures to assist the police with early advice.

Mr. Arnold: My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that, when the CPS was introduced, the confidence of the public and many policemen was damaged by the extent to which court cases did not even get to court, let alone achieve a successful conviction. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us about the improvements that have been made, because the public want villains to be caught, to appear in court and to be sent to prison?

The Attorney-General: The public, my hon. Friend and I are at one with the police and the CPS in wanting


wrongdoers brought promptly to trial and, if convicted, properly sentenced. I can tell my hon. Friend that, since its early days, when the CPS was undermanned and it was difficult to find staff, it has made enormous strides. It is now working closely with the police, there is mutual help from each side and, as my hon. Friend will know, there is now an experiment under which Crown prosecutors are put into busy police stations so that they can give immediate advice where required. I believe that that will help to achieve exactly the result that my hon. Friend would want.

Mr. Skinner: Should not the Government accept some of that advice—because they have practised fraud on the British people for the past 17 years? That has been made worse because, during the past few days, it has become apparent that members of the Tory party, who are supposed to sign the Register of Members' Interests, are intent on misleading—it could be described as fraud—because they intend to tell the British people and the commissioner that they will not reveal how much money they are making from moonlighting. If they intend to practise the art of deception, surely other people outside the House are bound to copy them.

The Attorney-General: The British people would be wise to watch and listen to everything that the hon. Gentleman says, given the fellow feelings among his hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches. While they are looking at the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), they might also glance into the woods, to right and left, to see what is lurking behind him.

Crown Prosecution Service

Ms Abbott: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Crown Prosecution Service.[25665]

The Solicitor-General: Among other things, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are taking steps to improve the quality and timeliness of case preparation by reducing the volume of paperwork in police files and piloting the use of CPS lawyers giving on-the-spot advice in busy police stations.

Ms Abbott: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the case of Stephen Lawrence, who was cruelly murdered by a gang of white racists three years ago, and whose parents brought a private prosecution in the absence of any action by the CPS? Is he aware how hopeless and grief-stricken his parents feel today? One of the causes of their anguish is that none of the evidence, including videos of the young men concerned boasting about killing and maiming black people, videos of them practising stabbing people with knives, the alleged murder weapon and forensic evidence, came before the jury because the judge deemed that the eyewitness was not reliable? Without any criticism of how the judge handled the case, can the hon. and learned Gentleman understand how brokenhearted the Lawrences are? Can he understand that they must now feel that, although the case ultimately fell down in court, the judge deemed that the case had been properly brought, and if the CPS had acted earlier—instead, the case had to wait for three years before it came to court—the Lawrences might have seen justice done?

The Solicitor-General: We all have the deepest sympathy for the Lawrence family in their grief. I am well

aware of the facts of the case because my right hon. and learned Friend and I have looked at it a number of times with counsel and senior members of the CPS. I have to say to the hon. Lady that it is of overwhelming importance that the rule of law be upheld. The plain fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, the judge ruled that the evidence was inadmissible and, in doing so, he came to exactly the same conclusion as had been reached by the CPS much earlier—as a result of which it had declined to prosecute. In substance, the bottom line is that the judge and the CPS were of one mind.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that we all welcome the improvements to the CPS that he and the Attorney-General have mentioned today, but is he further aware that there is still an impression among policemen and many members of the public that the Crown Prosecution Service will not take action unless it is almost certain to achieve a conviction? Will he do everything he can to encourage the service to take action in the interests of society when there is a reasonable chance of a conviction?

The Solicitor-General: Those who think that the CPS requires certainty or near certainty before it will institute proceedings are utterly wrong. In 1995, 77.3 per cent. of contested cases before magistrates courts resulted in guilty verdicts, and 22.7 per cent. resulted in verdicts of not guilty. Such a dismissal rate gives the lie to the allegation that only certainties are prosecuted. The test is laid out clearly, in the code for Crown prosecutors, for everyone to see: if there is a realistic prospect of conviction, proceedings are started.

Magistrates Courts

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of cases in magistrates courts are prosecuted by (a) the in-house Crown Prosecution Service and (b) agent lawyers; and if he will make a statement.[25666]

The Solicitor-General: During the year ending March 1996, 90 per cent. of magistrates court sessions were covered by Crown Prosecution Service lawyers and 10 per cent. by agents.

Mr. Llwyd: That is a rather fantastic statistic, given that the CPS is now up to complement in most areas. When I worked in private practice—firmly on this planet, I might add—agents were usually used to cover up for cases badly prepared by the CPS. I do not know whether that is still the reason; I just wonder why as many as 10 per cent. of cases are covered by agents.

The Solicitor-General: It is done so that the CPS can conduct its business as efficiently and economically as possible. It is out of the question to expect the service to deal with every single case in every court, irrespective of the volume of work that has to be handled. I was in private practice until 1992, and I still appear in the courts so, like the hon. Gentleman, I have some experience.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Finance Act 1996
Education (Student Loans) Act 1996
Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1996
Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996
 Rating (Caravans and Boats) Act 1996

Orders of the Day — Housing Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order namely, New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 49, Schedule 2, Clauses 50 to 53, Schedule 3, Clauses 54 to 62, New Schedules relating to Part I, New Clauses relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 63 to 76, New Schedules relating to Part II, New Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Clauses 77 to 79, Schedule 4, Clauses 80 and 81, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 82 to 85, Schedule 7, Clauses 86 to 92, Schedule 8, Clause 93, Schedule 9, Clauses 94 to 100, New Schedules relating to Part III, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 101 and 102, Schedule 10, Clauses 103 and 104, Schedule 11, New Schedules relating to Part IV, New Clauses relating to Part V, amendments relating to Clauses 105 to 121, Schedule 12, Clauses 122 to 136, New Schedules relating to Part V, New Clauses relating to Part VI, amendments relating to Clauses 137 to 149, Schedule 13, Clause 150, New Schedules relating to Part VI, New Clauses relating to Part VII, amendments relating to Clauses 151 to 183, Schedule 14, Clauses 184 and 185, New Schedules relating to Part VII, New Clauses relating to Part VIII, amendments relating to Clauses 186 to 189, Schedule 15, Clauses 190 to 194, Schedule 16, Clauses 195 to 200, New Schedules relating to Part VIII, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules.—[Mr. Curry.]

New clause 14

CRITERIA FOR REGISTRATION OR REMOVAL FROM REGISTER

'.—(1) The Corporation shall establish (and may from time to time vary) criteria which should be satisfied by a body seeking registration as a social landlord; and in deciding whether to register a body the Corporation shall have regard to whether those criteria are met.
(2) The Corporation shall establish (and may from time to time vary) criteria which should be satisfied where such a body seeks to be removed from the register of social landlords; and in deciding whether to remove a body from the register the Corporation shall have regard to whether those criteria are met.
(3) Before establishing or varying any such criteria the Corporation shall consult such bodies representative of registered social landlords, and such bodies representative of local authorities, as it thinks fit.
(4) The Corporation shall publish the criteria for registration and the criteria for removal from the register in such manner as the Corporation considers appropriate for bringing the criteria to the notice of bodies representative of registered social landlords and bodies representative of local authorities.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 65 to 67 and 71.

Mr. Curry: A large number of amendments to this part of the Bill are Government amendments that reflect commitments which I gave to Members who served on the Committee. There are also a number of Opposition amendments, but not in this group.
The Government amendments honour commitments made in Committee to require the corporation to consult relevant parties on the criteria for registering and deregistering social landlords, and before issuing a general consent on the disposal of land by a registered social landlord. The new clause, I am sure, will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: As the Minister has made clear, new clause 14 has been introduced in response to amendments that we tabled in Committee. Those amendments sought to achieve greater clarity in the role of the Housing Corporation in registering and deregistering social landlords and also in the relationship of the Housing Corporation with local authorities and social landlords, including its consultation obligations.
We welcome new clause 14 and the amendments, which give effect to the undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I especially welcome new clause 14, which will provide that the Housing Corporation will have to consult not only the National Federation of Housing Associations, but local authorities. That is in line with amendments that I tabled in Committee. I also welcome amendment No. 67 because it is in line with amendments tabled by me in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

PROTECTED AREAS

'—(1) For the purposes of section 15 a protected area is a local authority area, or sub-division of such an area, which has been approved as a protected area by the local housing authority within whose area it falls, in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) An area may only be declared a protected area where—
(a) there is a high level of housing need demonstrated by the local authority's housing register and other relevant evidence, and
(b) it can be shown that dwellings in the social rented sector acquired under the right to buy could not easily be replaced within a reasonable timescale.
(3) After an area has been declared a protected area for a period of two years the local authority concerned must consider whether that area still meets the criteria of subsection (2) above, and, unless it is considered that those criteria are met, its status as a protected area shall lapse.
(4) Before declaring a protected area under subsection (2) above and in assessing whether the criteria of that subsection are met after the period of two years referred to in subsection (3) the local authority shall consult—
(a) all electors residing within the area, and
(b) all registered social landlords who own dwellings in that area,
and shall allow them a period of 28 days in which to object.
(5) If—
(a) a majority of electors residing within the area, or
(b) registered social landlords owning between them a majority of the dwellings which would be affected by the granting of protected area status,
object to the granting of protected area status within the specified period then the Secretary of State shall be empowered to rule whether the declaration is reasonable within the criteria specified in subsection (2).'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 6—Limitation on right of tenant to acquire dwelling—
'. The right conferred by section 15 on a tenant to acquire his dwelling shall apply only to areas where the Secretary of State can satisfy the local housing authority that it will not lead to a long-term increase in housing need in the area.'.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 15, page 10, line 7, after `(1) ', insert
'Unless he lives in a protected area, '.
Amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 43, at end insert—
'(5) The right conferred by this section shall not arise where the dwelling is subject to any restrictive covenant or agreement or charitable trust, which requires its provision and future use for affordable housing, excluding any nomination agreement which is not part of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or a similar covenant.'.
Amendment No. 10, in clause 16, page 11, line 2, at end insert—
'(c) designate dwellings or descriptions of dwellings subject to a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 created in pursuance of the affordable housing policy in a local authority's local plan, to which the right conferred by that section does not arise.'.
Amendment No. 36, in page 11, line 2 at end insert—
'(1A) A registered social landlord may designate any of its dwellings subject to a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 created in pursuance of the affordable housing policy in a local authority's local plan, to which the right conferred by section 15 does not arise.'.
Amendment No. 147, in page 11, line 2, at end insert—
'(1A) Where a tenant of a registered social landlord has the right to acquire the dwelling of which he or she is a tenant under section 15 and where under criteria established by the Housing Corporation with the approval of the Secretary of State there are good management grounds for excluding such a dwelling from the right to acquire, the registered social landlord shall provide an alternative dwelling from its housing stock for the tenant to acquire which provides equivalent facilities and is at an equivalent valuation if the landlord wishes to exercise the exclusion.'.

Mrs. Maddock: Liberal Democrats have long recognised the value of mixed communities, and I shall say a little about why they are so important. We also recognise that owner occupation can provide a stimulus to individual households and to areas. In moving new clause 5, we are not saying that we are against people in housing association properties buying the homes in which they live and nor, from my experience, are most housing associations in principle. But the reason why that is not generally happening up and down the country is that any housing association that chooses to sell to its tenants has to give the proceeds back to the Government, rather than being allowed to invest them in building replacements.
The Government have attempted to change the situation and I welcome that, but I still believe that we need to be very careful about what the sale of such properties will actually do to communities. Along with others, we want to see urban villages with a good mixture of housing, and we want to see that in the inner cities too. We want to move away from the huge public sector housing estates,


which can easily become ghettos. We are therefore in favour, in principle, of tenants of housing associations being able to buy their own homes, but only if it is their free choice, only if they can afford to, and only if the loss of those homes from the social sector will not cause serious problems for other sectors of housing in the area. The new clause seeks to address the last condition in a number of ways.
New clause 5 is similar to a clause that I tabled in Committee, but I have added new conditions to ensure that the right to create areas protected from the right to buy is not abused by local authorities. New clause 5 is about empowering local authorities to take decisions about what is best for the people in their areas, including both housing association tenants, who might wish to buy their homes, and people in housing need.
I am keen to allow local authorities to have the right of initiative to set up protected areas because I firmly believe that local authorities are the best bodies for assessing local housing need and local housing priorities. Local authorities are democratically accountable, they are on the ground where the problems exist and they are in a far better position than Ministers and civil servants to judge the merits of sales against the need to preserve an adequate stock of affordable homes for local people in housing need.
I have had numerous letters from parish councils, local councils and other organisations. We all received many letters when we were in Committee, and even in the past few days I have received more. I was interested to receive a letter from Cranbrook parish council and I was personally interested because I was christened in the church there. I was a little surprised to receive the letter, but the council sent copies to its local Members of Parliament as well as to myself and other Opposition Members. In the closing paragraphs of the letter, the council points to the two real issues. It states:
Why is the choice to be left to housing associations or a Minister rather than to local councils?
I agree with the council on that point. The council then asks how the section 106 agreements will be of any use if the Bill does not tie up with them.
To move nearer to my constituency, Purbeck district council sent a delegation to the Department of the Environment to express its concerns. Purbeck is an area of outstanding natural beauty. There are many reasons why it is difficult for the council to provide the right mix of housing, including social housing. Some ministerial proposals are extremely bureaucratic and lengthy. We could move away from that bureaucracy if local authorities could decide such matters for themselves. The issues that Purbeck district council has raised would be difficult to include in ministerial criteria. I believe, however, that they would come within the new clause.
The new clause provides that any local authority may declare all or part of the area for which it is responsible to be a protected area, where housing association tenants will not have the right to buy their homes. Such a declaration would be made only where a local authority could show a high level of housing need in a certain area. The authority would be required to show that homes sold off could not easily be replaced within a reasonable timescale.
There are several safeguards set out in the new clause. For example, if the registered social landlord holding the majority of social rented properties in the area to be designated as protected objects to the Secretary of State, the latter will have the right to rule on the legitimacy of the local authority's decision. That would be done in accordance with the criteria. Another safeguard is in the hands of the local electorate. If a majority of local electors object to the granting of protected area status, the Secretary of State will be empowered to rule on whether designation is genuine and falls within the criteria. A further safeguard is that the decision of the local authority must be reviewed at least every two years.
The new clause sets out commonsense measures that are designed to create a balance in housing association right to buy. Its provisions would provide flexibility. People would have the right to buy their homes where that could reasonably be done. The new clause has the support of many councillors throughout the country.
New clause 6 would provide a different approach by placing the onus on the Secretary of State to satisfy the local authority that the right to buy for housing association tenants will not lead to severe housing shortage. I am always concerned about giving powers to Ministers. The clause is not perfect, but it would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to justify the right to buy to the local authority.
Amendment No. 1 is linked to new clause 5. Amendment No. 2 would allow exemptions to the right to buy in terms of section 106 agreements and the planning system.
Many local authorities grant special planning permission for social housing because there is a shortage of affordable rented homes and virtually nowhere to build them. The Government, through planning law, have pushed for that to happen. I fear, however, that unless we arrive at a sensible decision, all that the Government have been trying to do through section 106 agreements—that is social housing provision in areas where it is needed—will be undone.
Amendment No. 36 is designed to protect section 106 agreements by allowing housing associations to exclude homes from a purchase grant scheme if they are built with planning permission with section 106 agreements. The amendment arises from discussions I have had—and I am sure the Minister and many others have had—with the National Federation of Housing Associations and it has its full and active support. I also welcome the constructive amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition—amendment No. 10—and amendment No. 147 tabled by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke).
3.45 pm
Amendment No. 10 would give the right to grant exemptions from the right to buy to the Secretary of State where section 106 agreements are in place. Hon. Members who served on the Committee may remember that I am reluctant to support the granting of extra powers to the Secretary of State. I do not believe that that is the best way in which to tackle the situation, but if the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall give it my support on the ground that I believe that section 106 planning agreements should be allowed to include exemption from the right to


buy. Anything that will go some way towards backing up that proposal is important even if it gives further powers to the Secretary of State.
I also support amendment No. 147 although I do not believe that it would achieve anything more than more selective criteria for the right to buy, accompanied by the existing provisions of the tenants incentive scheme. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South has tabled the amendment.
This may be one of the key debates on the Bill. It is an important debate and the Government should look carefully at how it ties in with previous statements they have made and previous legislation. There is an army of people outside the House who are anxious that we do not undo the good work that has been done in creating communities where there is a variety of housing. There are severe problems in our rural communities. I know that the Minister has moved on the matter, has consulted and has said that areas with fewer than 3, 000 people will be exempt. However, many people feel that that is a rather crude measure and that the Minister's other proposals on the matter are rather complicated.
New clause 5 and some of the amendments would make the matter simpler. They go along with the principle that I and other Liberal Democrats support, which is that we have faith in local councils and local communities to decide what is best in their area.

Mr. Raynsford: I rise to speak specifically to amendment No. 10. It relates to clause 16, so if it is pressed to a vote, that will happen rather later in our proceedings. I hope that that may be possible. It is right to spell out now why, in practice, there should be specific exemptions from the right-to-buy provisions relating to areas of housing that have been developed under section 106 agreements.
The amendment would give power to the Secretary of State to designate categories of dwellings subject to section 106 agreements for which the right to buy for housing associations would not apply. It would amend clause 16 under which the Secretary of State already has power to designate rural areas with a population of fewer than 3, 000 which will be exempt from the right to buy. The amendment is thus an extension of an existing power in the Bill.
Labour strongly supports the opportunity for tenants of housing associations to buy their homes, subject to proper safeguards to ensure that housing remains available for people in need who do not have the option to buy, especially in areas where the replacement of housing is well nigh impossible, and safeguards to ensure that the development of new housing for social need, as part of mixed developments, can continue. That is why we argued for specific exemptions following the publication of the White Paper last summer. We are glad that the Government have agreed to exemptions for rural areas with populations of fewer than 3, 000 people. I suspect, however, that there will be some definitional problems. The Minister has produced a huge schedule, listing all the parishes in the country where the exemptions will apply. Unfortunately, the debate will continue about precisely how many people live in the parishes concerned and whether these should or should not be included in the register. The Opposition, however, entirely support the principle.
Section 106 agreements raises similar principles. It may be helpful if I outline the main provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Government's planning policy guidance note 3 encourages local authorities to prepare local development plans and to make provision for affordable housing to be included as part of developments in areas where there is a clear need for such housing. PPG3 makes clear that the need for affordable housing is
a material planning consideration which may properly be taken into account in formulating development plan policies.
A local authority can therefore include an affordable housing policy in its local plan where a shortage of affordable housing has been identified. Such a policy enables the local authority to negotiate with developers seeking planning permission for residential developments. The authority can negotiate to ensure that the developers include an element of affordable housing on suitable sites. The Government's guidance suggests that the affordable housing provided by such a policy should be available "in the long term". PPG3 states that the authority must ensure that the benefits of affordable housing are
enjoyed by successive as well as by initial occupiers of property".
The problem with the right-to-buy scheme is that where that right exists with discounts, the affordable housing provided as part of a balanced development to ensure that there will be continued provision for successive as well as initial occupiers of the property will be entirely subverted. The initial occupiers with the right to buy could well seek to exercise that right, whereupon they become the outright owners of the property. They will then be free to sell it at a market price. So the purpose of the planning policy—to enable some affordable housing, usually 25 per cent. or less of the total development, to be provided as part of a mixed development to produce balanced communities and to ensure that there will be opportunities to obtain affordable housing in the future—could be subverted if the right to buy were to apply without exemptions.
There are more serious implications. Landowners who have been prepared to consider handing over land for development at less than the market rate to enable affordable housing schemes to be developed, and developers who have been prepared to provide sites or, in some cases, to build houses at lower than market rates to facilitate the application of the policy might well decide that they will no longer do so.
That is not scaremongering on the part of the Opposition. I must pray in evidence one of the largest commercial companies in this country, which has, on the whole, a record of support and sympathy for the Government—the Hanson group. The group, one of the countries' largest developers, has threatened to pull out of a deal to provide 1, 500 homes for low-income families as part of a development near Peterborough. These houses will be part of a much larger development. The company argues that the proposals to extend the right to buy will amount to a "slap in the face" and "a serious disincentive" to future developers. The reason why it says that is simple, and was outlined in a letter sent earlier this month to the chief executive of Peterborough council by the relevant director of the Hanson group.
He said:
To find that our residential tenants, who will already be benefiting from substantial housing provision, will be able to make a tax-free gain at our expense will be seen as a slap in the face and


a serious disincentive to future developers … I shall review the situation next year when, hopefully, the Government will have revised its position.
We hope that a Government will have revised the position next year, whether this Government or another one. Mr. Hopkins, the managing director of Hanson Land goes on to say:
Otherwise, I feel it is inevitable that we shall have to renegotiate our agreement with you.
There we have a large private developer saying that if the measure goes through it will undermine the basis on which the company has been prepared to provide affordable sites as part of a development and that it will renegotiate. There we have in a nutshell one aspect of the problem.
As I have said, the other aspect of the problem is the loss of housing as it is sold over time and becomes market housing rather than affordable housing. Against that background, it is clear that we need safeguards to ensure that such developments can continue to be built. We also need safeguards to ensure that the Government's planning policies can continue to operate. There is a clear contradiction between the impact of the right-to-buy policy and that of planning policies. Our amendment is designed to overcome that conflict.
The effect of the exemption will not be enormous. We are not talking about large numbers of people being denied the opportunity to buy their homes. Department of the Environment research suggests that 250 to 300 schemes have been developed under the planning guidelines since the 1980s, providing about 11, 000 affordable homes. We are talking about a relatively small number of homes, but we must ensure that they continue to be available in perpetuity for people in housing need.
Our approach differs from that of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). I understand her concern. It is identical to ours. Her approach is to allow local authorities to declare their areas off limits for the right to buy. That does not seem to us to be the correct way to go about it. It could result in arbitrary distinctions between areas. One local authority might designate a protected area while the next one might not. Individuals would not be able to exercise their rights with any confidence. There would be anomalies between areas. Many individuals would feel a sense of injustice. For all those reasons, we do not believe that the hon. Lady's proposal is the best way to tackle the problem.
We propose instead to give the Secretary of State powers to designate the categories of developments under section 106 agreements which would be exempt. That would ensure a standard national policy. There would be no scope for individual local authorities or landlords to adopt different policies. There would be no scope for them to seek to frustrate the wishes of tenants to buy their home in those areas. It would ensure a consistent national framework similar to the national framework already agreed by the Government for rural housing.
So we have here a modest amendment designed to ensure the continuation of a planning policy which was introduced by the Government, which we support, which can ensure the creation of balanced communities and which can ensure that the affordable housing generated by those developments continue to be available.
It makes sense and it is a necessary safeguard that will ensure the success of the right to buy for housing associations—a concept that we support—without creating unfortunate consequences that could undermine appropriate developments, such as the Peterborough example that I have given, and without creating a position where the balanced communities that we hope to see achieved are eroded over time as all the property transfers into owner occupation. I hope that the Government accept the amendment because it makes an enormous amount of sense and it is consistent with their planning policies.

4 pm

Mr. Clive Betts: I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford)—that is, amendment No. 10. I support the proposal that the Secretary of State should be able to specify properties where section 106 agreements have been reached and should be able to ensure that they are excluded from the right to buy. In all the discussions in Committee about the right-to-buy properties for housing association tenants, we have said that we support the general approach and the general principle of the right to buy.
We support the right of housing association tenants to be on a similar basis to local authority tenants. On a number of occasions we have made it clear that we are not prepared to support exemptions where there are not exemptions for local authority tenants. We believe that housing association tenants have the same entitlement and we want to see it written into the Bill.
In speaking to amendment No. 10, my hon. Friend said that there is a possibility that the policy will lead to problems in rural areas, including a lack of social and affordable housing. We pressed for the development of a policy that will give protection to that sort of housing in those areas and we pressed for some exclusions from the rights that are generally available to housing association tenants. That is precisely why we have come to look at section 106 agreements.
We believe that the Minister should have the power, in certain circumstances, to exempt certain properties because of the potential for removing the availability of affordable social housing from certain parts of our community. If the right-to-buy policy were allowed to stand without any of the safeguards that we are trying to write into the Bill, there could be problems in terms of a lack of social housing in rural areas.
I shall illustrate my support for the amendment by referring to part of my constituency. There is an area in my constituency that is essentially a new town. It was brought into Sheffield at the beginning of the 1970s from Derbyshire for the purpose of allowing an expansion of Sheffield's community which could not expand within the given city boundaries of the time. The plans for the area were worked out in great detail, with public consultation and general support, and they included a balance of housing to buy and housing to rent. There has been a substantial change of housing policy in this country since the inception of those plans. The early townships had a balance of communities—they had houses to rent and houses to buy—but only housing to buy has been possible in later years.
The Government often attack the large council estates in our country—sometimes unfairly and sometimes indiscriminately. However, they bring out the fact that it


is unwise to have large areas in any city that are of the same tenure and that have no social mix. I contend that it is unwise to have large areas in our cities with only houses to rent and with people perhaps coming from a similar socio-economic background, but that it is equally unwise to develop large areas in our cities—such as Sheffield—where there are only houses to buy. People who choose to rent or who have no alternative but to rent do not have the opportunity to live in those communities.
There are areas in my constituency where people who cannot afford to buy or who do not want to buy are excluded—for example, people who want to rent a small flat. For example, I refer to younger people and to older people—who may have owned a house but who choose to move into rented accommodation later in life. Constituents who come to my surgery tell me, "I live in this area and own my property. Can you enable mum and dad to live near me? By the way, they want a council property or housing association property to rent. We do not really mind which, as long as there is a social landlord." The answer to such people is "No. We are very sorry. We can find somewhere, but it is three miles away." That is all right if the person concerned has a car in which to visit mum and dad, but it will not be so easy for mum and dad to visit in return, and they will lose some independence because no property is available to rent in the area.
It is also important to achieve a balance between communities. It used to be possible for local authorities to build suitable properties, but they cannot do so any more. In Sheffield we developed a very good partnership scheme enabling councils and housing associations to work with private builders. The Government have now stopped that scheme, but it has already put some rentable houses into the area.
We want to make housing association developments possible. In particular, we want to enable housing associations to afford to buy the available land. Section 106 agreements are a valuable asset, as they can be defined as part of an overall planning policy. I have just been talking about the planning arrangements for the Mosborough area in Sheffield. As part of their overall planning policy, local authorities should be able to wield a particular weapon: the ability to designate parts of a new community as areas where social housing will be provided. It is not sufficient to designate those areas in the first place, however; it is equally important to ensure that they remain areas for social housing in the longer term. The initial provision of a balanced community will be of no great benefit in 20 or 30 years' time if all the houses that were built for rent—often in attractive and desirable locations—suddenly become subject to the right to buy, and are sold. The initial planning policies that recognised the desirability of affordable housing must be maintained, and the amendment would empower the Secretary of State to ensure that they are.
Local authorities must not take such a use of planning policies lightly. In general, if areas are allocated for housing under planning policies, any sort of housing can be developed. Section 106 has a special function: as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, it is used by planning authorities in the light of a particular local need, when that is the best—often the only—way in which to ensure that suitable housing is built.
I am currently discussing the matter with representatives of the North British housing association, which has provided quite a few properties in the Sheffield area. It is now paying particular attention to the Mosborough area, and wants to talk to the local authority about the use of section 106 powers and the possibility of building properties in the area without the need for housing association grant from the Government. Naturally, the association fears that if it goes ahead using its own resources and other private funds that it can secure, the properties that it builds for specific purposes may be removed from the social rented sector soon afterwards.
Amendment No. 10 does not say that all section 106 properties will be exempt in all circumstances; it says that the Secretary of State should have a right and a power to remove properties from the right-to-buy scheme in some circumstances, when they are provided under section 106 powers and when they have clearly been provided to meet a local need that still exists. When the need has been assessed and identified, when it is clear that the houses were built to meet that need under section 106 and when it is still necessary to ensure that people are able to live in their communities when they can only afford to rent, the Secretary of State will be able to exercise his judgment and make certain that those properties remain available for social renting. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that this modest amendment could have a real impact on some people in some communities.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I rise to speak on my amendment No. 147, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) referred. In Committee, we debated the general subject of this group of amendments, and I raised the issue with which the amendment deals with my hon. Friend the Minister. He implied that he understood the issue and would consider it. It is therefore a probing amendment, designed to provide a hook on which he can hang the outcome of his consideration.
Before I come to the amendment, I wish to say a word about the balance of inner-city housing. In Committee, I noted that social housing in inner cities was needed to enable the people who provide the key services that any city requires to live close to the centre. I recognise the Bill's potential implications for the existing provision of social housing and for any new housing that is provided. I argued that it would be wrong to build in any special purposes, beyond raising the issue of management in such areas.
I am conscious of the problem because we have some prior evidence. A housing association in my constituency manages housing that came to it following the abolition of the Greater London council, where a number of GLC tenants had exercised the right to buy before the block came into its hands. I dare say that it is partly that experience of mixed use in the housing that it currently has to manage that prompts its thoughts.
It is unquestionably the case that several tenants who exercised the right to buy in the middle 1980s have sold on, as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said. It is therefore arguable that the housing is no longer being used for the purpose for which it was originally designed. The problem about the subsequent ownership into which such housing comes is the same as that which applies in respect of leasehold enfranchisement. There can


be passionate arguments in favour of securing the right to leasehold enfranchisement, but, after it has been exercised, the house can be sold on to foreigners who were not part of the original debate and had not argued for the change.
To return to the issue that I raised in Committee and which I want to raise with the Minister, the problem of housing associations in inner-city areas is that they are likely to have pockets of housing in many different buildings. Their capacity to manage them efficiently is enormously enhanced if, as far as possible, mixed use can be avoided and the style of ownership in particular blocks or pockets can be consistent—homogeneous rather than heterogeneous.
My amendment would enable housing associations to argue that management problems would be caused by certain properties passing into the hands of those who wish to purchase them. In such circumstances, provided they could prove that, they should have the opportunity to offer an alternative flat—in central London, it is likely to be a flat rather than a house—to the tenant who wished to buy. The housing association and both its tenants and leaseholders would be protected from the possibility of rents and service charges rising simply because the cost of management had increased because of the mixed use that it was being required to maintain.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Over a good many years, I have taken an interest in the effects of right-to-buy arrangements that were introduced on to the statute book through the Housing Act 1980. Although I have always been a great enthusiast of the right to buy, I have been anxious that, in some areas of the country, the full effect of an open market on rented property should not apply to the right to buy.
I start by declaring—as I have in the Register of Members' Interests—that I own some rented housing, but none of it is in areas such as the national parks, about which I want to talk this afternoon.
Over the years, I have done my best—both from within and outside Government—to try to ensure that the effects of right-to-buy arrangements did not, in areas such as my constituency in the Lake district, make an already difficult housing situation infinitely worse. For all the years that I have been in the House—nearly 32—I have been extremely concerned about what happens in regions such as my constituency, where there is a huge demand from people from outside the area who wish to have retirement or holiday homes and who buy up properties. They drive the prices up to such a level that the local people who have been born, brought up and want to work in the area can no longer afford to live in it because of the serious escalation of house prices.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is by no means confined to the Lake district. Some of the lovely rural areas in my constituency are handicapped by the same process, which is why it is essential to keep some properties for indigent people, and their sons and daughters.

Mr. Jopling: That is right. My hon. Friend, whose constituency joins mine and who is a distinguished former

Member of the European Parliament—for my constituency as well as her own—has put her finger on an important point.
I was always concerned that the right-to-buy arrangements could, if allowed to develop in an uncontrolled way, drive council houses out of the hands of locally born and locally employed people. I was concerned that the arrangements could drive those houses into the realm of people who wanted retirement or holiday homes.
When the 1980 Act was passing through the House, we put pressure on the Government—I did so from within Government—to curtail the power of new owners who had exercised their right to buy to resell their properties on the open housing market. I think that it was the House of Lords that eventually nudged the Government into rightly curtailing the resale of those houses after the right to buy had been exercised. They restricted that right to reasonably locally based people, which was a good move.
In my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is right to say that the same thing applies to many other parts of the country, particularly the national parks—council house tenants bought their council houses and found that it paid to let them as holiday homes. The massive profits they made allowed them to pay a mortgage on other houses in nearby towns where they went to live. They were running small cottage industries using their council houses. We were able to halt that practice in about 1988.
I was involved also in steps, which the Government supported, to prevent abuses involving houses that had been earmarked as joint ownership properties. Owners who could not afford to pay 100 per cent. of the property price were able to enter into a shared ownership arrangement with either the housing association or the local authority, and then try to staircase their ownership. We took steps to prevent those houses from coming on to the open housing market thereby ceasing to qualify as joint ownership properties for those who wanted to own their homes but who could not afford to pay the whole price.
Last summer, the Government announced in their White Paper that properties in rural areas owned by housing associations would be exempt from the new right to buy. The tenants would also be exempt from the right-to-buy provision in those circumstances. I welcomed that move. I thought that all was going well until I heard recently from the Country Landowners Association—of which I am a member—which expressed continuing concern about the situation. In winding up the debate, I ask the Minister to answer some questions that bother the CLA.
It wonders whether the Government have done enough in the Bill to restore certainty and enable the future development of affordable rented housing schemes. First, the CLA asks the Government how providers of land can be certain that low-cost housing will not be lost to the open market in future if, as the Government have said, the boundaries of rural area exemption are to be subject to reviews in the Bill. That is a danger to future confidence.
It leads to the CLA's second question: how will the Government deal with special cases involving, for example, small towns in national parks—I have talked about that problem in my constituency and in other areas—which exceed the 3, 000 population threshold but


which do not have alternative housing options? That is a problem in my constituency, and it concerns other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and those whose constituencies encompass national parks.
Thirdly, the CLA asks how planning authorities can have the confidence to make section 106 agreements on exceptions sites in small towns such as those that I described, when the low-cost housing involved is not part of the rural areas exemption, or is likely to not be exempt in five or 10 years. They are important questions, and I shall listen very carefully to the Minister's response. The CLA tells me that it believes that there would be greater certainty if the Bill provided a once-and-for-all exemption for schemes in existence at the point of Royal Assent or at the date of planning permission for subsequent developments. It believes that there would be greater certainty if the Bill extended the definition of rural areas to cover special cases where the exercise of a right to buy would harm the interests of future generations.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the CLA, and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. Let me say in the friendliest way that the House of Lords gets very excited about exactly such issues: I strongly recommend that he gets his act together tonight, as that will save him a great deal of trouble when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. William O'Brien: The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has issued a firm warning. The Minister would be wise to take note of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, because of his experience as a Cabinet Minister responsible for housing. He made it clear that there are anomalies in the drafting of housing and planning legislation, and concern has been expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the possible consequences.
I want to draw attention to a local concern and the views expressed by people responsible for housing matters in West Yorkshire and Humberside. Mr. Steve Close, the chief executive of the Chantry housing association in Wakefield, wrote to me to the effect that the Chantry housing association and the National Federation of Housing Associations remain concerned that, without some changes, the proposed grant scheme for housing association tenants would undermine the provision of affordable housing in areas where replacement is impossible.
Local authorities in the industrial and urban conurbations of West Yorkshire are finding it difficult to replace the affordable social housing that was sold under the right to buy. That affects the provision of affordable housing to meet specific needs. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that, in my constituency, there are areas with a specific need for social housing and for houses that people can afford to rent. The private sector does not provide such accommodation. Amendment No. 10 gives the Minister an opportunity to regulate matters, so that properties that were built for specific purposes under section 106 will continue to be available to those who require low-rent properties.
In Committee, we asked about houses that had been built specifically for certain purposes under certain conditions, particularly for the elderly or the infirm. Ministers have said that that practice will continue and

that such properties will continue to be available to specifically designated people. We want to look one step beyond the assurance given by the Minister in Committee, to ensure that section 106 housing will remain in the market for people in need of social properties at affordable rents.
The Government have acknowledged the need for affordable housing. Ministers require every local authority to prepare a local development plan that conveys proposals and objectives for the area, and Wakefield has conformed.
4.30 pm
The Government's planning policy guidance No. 3 issued in 1992 stated:
a community's need for affordable housing is a material planning consideration which may be taken into account in formulating development plan policies.
One purpose of new clause 5 is to secure the Government's acknowledgement that there is a need for affordable housing. We want the Minister's reassurance on that point, and an undertaking that properties that are considered by housing associations or local authorities as necessary under new clause 5 will remain available to people in need of social housing at rents that they can afford.
Affordable housing is defined as subsidised housing and low-cost market housing. I am pleased that the Minister nods in agreement—it appears that he is drawing nearer to meeting our request.
A local authority may include an affordable housing policy in its local plan where a shortage of such housing has been identified. In Wakefield and other areas where the mining industry was once predominant, social housing was provided under the former coal mine agreements. With the closure of the collieries, such estates have been demolished and replaced by high-price properties that local people cannot afford, and little low-rent properties remain apart from local authority or housing association homes.
Under the right to buy, the number of local authority properties available for rent is decreasing considerably, and as the Bill makes provision for the right to buy to be extended to housing association tenants, one can anticipate that people trying to obtain an affordable tenancy will have further problems unless changes are made to the Bill. If local authorities continue to include an affordable housing policy in their local plans where a shortage of such housing has been identified, that will enable authorities to negotiate with residential developers, to include an element of affordable housing on suitable sites.
I again draw attention to the situation in mining areas, where there has been a total clearance of social housing because of the mining industry's closure. Provisions for designating certain areas for social housing and including affordable housing need to be strengthened, which I hope that the Minister will consider today.
Government guidance suggests that affordable housing provided through a planning policy should be available in the long term, and states that local authorities must ensure that arrangements are in place to ensure that the
benefit of affordable housing will be enjoyed by successive as well as by initial occupiers of the property.
That point is reiterated in the amendments.
It is important for the Minister to assure us that, when new properties are available under section 106 or when agreement has been reached with local authorities and developers, those properties will be available for future generations. The destinies of people who will rely in future on social housing at affordable rents will be determined by the decisions that we take today.
Against that background, I support amendment No. 10. I believe that it is a constructive amendment, that it will be of great benefit to many people in future, and that the Minister should support it. If we pass it, we will demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that this is the type of social and affordable housing policy that the Government believe in.
I ask the Minister and all hon. Members to support this group of amendments, because they are constructive and will help to enhance the Bill's benefit.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that Ludlow is a very rural constituency. I endorse the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who has put the case for beefing up this legislation, so that all those who have entered into the spirit of providing social housing in the countryside since the change in the legislation some years ago will not feel that they have been let down, but believe that there is some certainty about the future.
Before I say any more, I should emphasise that I believe in the right-to-buy policy. It has been one of the most successful political policies of all time, and enabled thousands of people to achieve their lifelong ambition—to live in the property they own—which is entirely consistent with the policies of a Conservative Government. Having said that, I trust that the Minister will appreciate that it is very much a question of horses for courses.
Rural housing was one of the first matters that I became aware of as a problem in my constituency after I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 1987. The Minister will be able to understand why it is a problem. A brief explanation is that every property in my constituency is regarded as desirable, and that it is regarded as doubly desirable by those who do not currently live in my constituency but who would like to live there.
People move into my constituency from more affluent areas. They have a bigger purse and deeper pockets than the indigenous population, and they are therefore able to buy up every property, no matter what its condition or size.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister, who I am sure is paying close attention to this debate, will recognise that there is a world of difference between introducing a right-to-buy policy in an urban area, where it is entirely appropriate, and introducing it in a rural area, where, in my submission and that of many of my constituents, it is entirely inappropriate because of the circumstances I have described.
We have already altered the law to enable social housing to be provided in rural areas, and everyone in the jigsaw supports our policy. It is therefore important that we give those people a sense of stability, and a guarantee

that they continue to operate the current system. I am talking about the landowners who have made land available at less than the commercial price, the housing associations that are involved, and, not least, the planners who grant planning permission outside the village enclave.
It would be a mistake if we missed the opportunity to reassure those people that the current regime will continue to operate. For that reason, I seek a specific assurance from the Minister that he will accept the terms of the amendment.

Sir Roger Moate: I must apologise to the House for participating rather late in the debate, but I am glad that I had the chance to hear the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) speak in favour of amendment No. 10, which I too support. I should like to inquire of my hon. Friend the Minister about certain issues.
In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), I enthusiastically support the right-to-buy policy. I regard it as one of the great achievements of successive Conservative Governments. I also regard the creation of the housing association movement as one of the jewels in our crown.
This morning, I received a letter from the chief executive of the Swale housing association, which has been immensely successful. I take its representations seriously. That housing association in my constituency has control of between 6, 000 and 7, 000 houses under a total transfer scheme from the public sector. Its successful operation makes it an example that should be emulated right across the country.
The chief executive stresses that the housing association supports
right to buy and other purchase initiatives
and that it
shall operate fully the purchase grant scheme which extends the right to buy scheme to new tenants not just those who transferred from Swale Borough Council".
Given that support, when he went on to suggest that amendments Nos. 10 and 36 should be considered seriously, I therefore wanted to make representations to the Minister to find out how the Government propose to deal with houses that have been built under section 106 agreements.
I will not labour the point, which has already been well made, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is well seized of it, but an element of contradiction seems apparent. If we encourage, and rightly so, local authorities to make section 106 agreements to deal specifically with the problems of housing need and affordable housing in certain areas, it is inconsistent to say that those self-same houses can be sold.
It is my understanding that this specific problem is not a great one—I am taking that information from the briefing of the National Federation of Housing Associations, and I apologise if those points have already been made. None the less, I note that Department of the Environment research suggests that 11, 000 such homes have been built since the late 1980s, mainly in the south-east and in south Wales.
According to that briefing:
Of three large associations, one had 10 dwellings out of 400 that would be affected, one had only 2 schemes and the other just 1 scheme.


I have no wish to undermine the general concept of the proposal, and I am not calling for large-scale exemptions. An argument has been responsibly made, however, about a specific number of section 106 agreements in areas such as mine, where a small number of houses meet a specific need. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that. I have no idea whether the amendments are sensible or right, but I would welcome some words of assistance from my hon. Friend to meet my philosophical argument.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I should like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has said.
I welcome the Government's initiative to exempt those communities of fewer than 3, 000 people, but I too represent a rural constituency, 80 per cent. of which is designated for planning purposes of one sort or another.
If the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow is desirable, my constituency in the Cotswolds is equally, if not more, so. Houses there are even more expensive than in my hon. Friend's constituency. The incentive for people to try to get on the ladder for low-cost housing and then try to get the right to buy that property is all the greater in my constituency. My fear is that, when the low-cost housing that has been provided is whittled away by the right to buy, there will be ever more pressure for even more land to be provided at a low cost.
Although a section 106 agreement may be entered into when an estate is built, the pressure will grow for even more low-cost estates. That would have two consequences. First, ever more land would be used up in a rural area. Secondly, and perhaps a more important consequence, a landlord who is offered a mere glimmer of the possibility of obtaining full planning permission might not even want to sell or give that land at low cost.
In my constituency, the building land for which full planning permission for residential dwellings is available costs between £100,000 and £200,000 per acre. There is therefore a great incentive for a landlord to hold out in case he might get full planning permission. Where an area is designated for low-cost housing, and is subject to the exemption, the relevant criteria should be altered only in exceptional circumstances; otherwise, we will be in deep trouble in rural areas.

Mr. Curry: The debate has ranged from the furthest flung rural communities to the inner-city bailiwick of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I should declare an interest as my constituency is the fifth most scattered one in the country, where anything that is not national park is an area of outstanding natural beauty. The problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has highlighted—his constituency matches mine—and those outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) are all writ large in my constituency. They would therefore expect me to be particularly sensitive to the problems of housing in rural areas.
When we drew up the policy for the new purchase grant scheme we had two things in mind. First, we wished to extend home ownership so that people living in housing association property were put on a more equal basis with

people living in local authority property under secure tenure. The basis of the scheme is the equivalence of status of those two sets of tenants. Secondly, we wanted to recognise that certain rural areas present particular problems, where it would not be sensible to permit a right to buy.
The question then arose about how to define such a scheme. I wanted a scheme that was easy to define, clear cut, not bureaucratic and complex and which did not allow properties to float in and out of designation. That is why we chose the concept of rural settlements of 3, 000 people. We did so partly because the definition of rurality by the Rural Development Commission, which we are building upon, is fairly well understood. We chose carefully the idea of settlement as opposed to village or parish because it gave us more flexibility. One could have a parish which included some large places, as well as some small areas. Designating settlements enables us to propose more embracing exclusions. Making sure that people know what those exclusions are is of course important. That is why we propose carefully to list the settlements' locations, and we shall also issue maps carefully defining them.

Mr. Gill: If my memory serves me right, this is where we were last time the question was debated. I am sure that the Minister acknowledged then that definitions would need to be made, so it is sad that we are here discussing the same measure again while the lists are still not available. When does he propose to publish them?

Mr. Curry: We gave members of the Committee some illustrative examples of how we intended to proceed. We shall issue lists once the Bill has completed its passage; they will be subject to consultation. We do not intend to come up with a definition that is so hard and fast that settlements of 2, 999 will be included but those of 3, 001 will not. Equally, we want to avoid accidents of birth and death sending settlements in and out of designation.
Once we have designated the settlements for the first time, we expect the designations to remain in force for 10 years, or at least between censuses. It is not in anyone's interest that settlements should not know what status they enjoy. Obviously, there will have to be revisions from time to time—say, when a major settlement is developed, since that will alter the social and economic nature of an area. We are approaching the matter flexibly, therefore, but with a clear set of rules that will not, I hope, be confusing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale raised some questions about his own part of the world, mentioning the national parks in particular. There are only 17 settlements of more than 3,000 people in all our national parks. In the Lake district they are Keswick, which is not in my right hon. Friend's constituency, and Windermere, which is, and which has a population of roughly 70,000. In the Yorkshire dales and Northumberland parks, no settlements fall within the designation. In Exmoor, there would be two, in the north Yorkshire moors, three, and in Dartmoor, four. There would be rather more in the Peak district, but we shall need to discuss the detail to determine exactly which ones will be designated.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has explained that he cannot be here owing to the need to attend a Select Committee this afternoon, but I might


point out that, with areas close to major conurbations, we would need to be sensitive to the situation and to recognise that differing circumstances probably apply as compared with more far-flung communities.
I should at this point remark that in rural areas, for existing properties, whether or not covered by section 106, the scheme is entirely voluntary. Properties are covered only if the housing association opts into the scheme, because it is entirely discretionary. The element of requirement impinges only on properties built with public funds after this legislation becomes law. The hon. Member for Attercliffe cited the example of a housing association that wanted to develop affordable homes using only money raised privately. In that case, there would be no right to buy. The simple formula in that case is: no housing association grant, no sale. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
We have just circulated a consultation paper, and replies have been received. The proposals recognise the need for replacement properties, which is why we recycle receipts into the scheme. That is an essential element of the whole idea. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) correctly said, under current legislation if a housing association sells properties—quite a number do; it is well established—the receipts go back to the Housing Corporation. The money is recycled into general funding, not specifically to the housing association. Under this scheme, when a housing association sells a property, the receipts are retained by the association and must be used to provide new social housing. That means that if the association is using land donated, or given at very low cost, the sale takes place at market value and there will be no discount for the housing association. The tenant gets a discount, as with the local authority scheme—although perhaps not on the same scale. The point is that the housing association receives a market price for the property, and all the money goes into the provision of new accommodation. That is how any donation is recycled for future tenants.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) mentioned Hanson Land Ltd. The Labour party rides with strange bedfellows these days, it would seem. One day Hanson—the next, who knows? The answer to the hon. Member's point is that if those properties are sold at market value, the housing association will use the whole of that value for recycling into new properties. So Hanson's fear of a bonus for the tenants is misplaced. There is no bonus for them from the point of view of the housing association.

Mrs. Maddock: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I believe that there is evidence that in the process of buying and selling there will not be enough money left at the end of the system to replace all the properties. I cannot quote the figures, but I know that people are very worried about this. In practice it sounds fine: the money will be returned and will be available for future use. But we all know from buying our own homes that it costs money to make financial deals, so some money is lost to the system.

Mr. Curry: Under the legislation, when a housing association receives money it will all go into the provision of new accommodation—and it does not have to be newly

built. It can be acquired in other ways, which may enable the association, in fact, to invest in more houses than it has sold.
We want to be flexible, as I have said. We shall keep all the mechanisms under review. I am anxious that the scheme should work. As I said often in Committee, I am not in receipt of biblical certitude; we need to keep an eye on developments. I would not hesitate to amend the scheme if that appeared necessary. But I do not want to make the scheme so complicated that its very complexity constitutes a deterrent. Our twin purpose is to encourage home ownership and to put housing association tenants on a more equal footing with local authority tenants. At the same time, we have to recognise that there are circumstances in which that would not be—to use a word beloved of my officials—appropriate.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has presented the case for the recycling of capital receipts as the solution to the problem, but it is not an adequate solution. First, there will be places where it is impossible to replace properties, especially in communities where there is strong pressure on development and where, once a development is complete, people do not want further development. If the housing that is developed goes out of social use, therefore, it will be lost for ever.
Secondly, the crucial point about Hanson which the Minister overlooked is that no developer or landowner will make land available for social needs at low market price if he then sees that the resulting windfall accrues not to him but to the housing association and the tenant, because the tenant can buy at a discount and the housing association gets the capital receipt. Many landowners say that they are prepared to part with land for less than the market price, but they will not do so if, as a result of the right to buy, that land is built on with houses that are then sold at market rates. That will act as a deterrent to future development in Peterborough and elsewhere.

Mr. Curry: There is no windfall gain for the tenant. The tenant pays a market price, but he is given help in paying the market price by the grant. The tenant does not get a discount, irrespective of whether the land was given by the Church Commissioners, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale or anyone else. The price that the tenant pays is exactly the same as the price that the market requires, but he gets assistance from the grant that is given to help him to pay that price. The tenant pays a percentage and the remainder is made up by the grant.
If the housing association sells a property that has been built on land that has been donated, it will make a bigger profit from the sale of that land and that profit will then be recycled into the provision of new accommodation. The value of the gift is transmitted forward into the new sales. That is my point. But I am willing to reply to other points.

5 pm

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend the Minister has not answered the question posed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). We all accept, on both sides of the House, that there is no gain or benefit to the tenant. We accept that such gain as there is will go to the housing association and will therefore, as my hon. Friend points


out, be recycled. But will he put himself in the shoes of the landowner who either has sold or might in future be prepared to sell land for the purpose of social housing? If the landowner provides land for that purpose, is there any certainty that that land and that housing will remain in use for the purpose for which he has made it available at less than the market price? If there is no certainty, why should the landowner provide any land? More to the point, why should any landowner make additional land available in the future if the original housing on the original land is disposed of? My hon. Friend must consider the issue from the point of view of the landowner, who may be very reluctant to let any land go. In many instances, there will be opposition in the villages to any land being allowed for that sort of housing and it will be extraordinarily difficult for any landowner to countenance making land available unless there is a guarantee that the land and the houses built on it will remain used for the purpose for which he made it available in the first place.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Minister continues, I must say that we have had two rather long interventions. I shall not be so generous next time.

Mr. Curry: First, in all the areas covered by the 3,000 rule, the landowner can donate land in the absolute certainty that that land and the property which stands on it will not be sold because it will fall within the exemption. I anticipate that most of the settlements that will be designated in the first instance are likely to remain permanently designated. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, in my constituency, and in the national parks, most of the settlements are not on the borderline of 3,000, but are well below 3,000—in the hundreds. So the question would not arise.
Secondly, outside the 3,000 rule for new build, if the landlord gave land for the purposes of social housing and social houses were built on it and if the housing association had used public funds to build property—that is a further condition—and that land were sold, the housing association's receipt, which would be the market receipt, would have to be used to provide new social lettings. The housing association has no discretion about that, because it is a requirement that that money be recycled into new social lettings.

Mr. Jopling: I shall try to be brief. There is still an element of uncertainty which my hon. Friend the Minister has not been able to put aside. Why not include in the Bill a provision that the reviews can only bring more land into the exempt area and cannot take land that is already exempted outside the area?

Mr. Curry: There might be circumstances in which a decision is taken to establish a new settlement, for example. We all know the pressures that we are under in provision for new households. We wish to settle that, as far as possible, on used sites, and that point verges on the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South.
One cannot exclude the possibility that there might be some demand that would require the augmenting of existing settlements. Such circumstances will not occur frequently, but one should not assume that they cannot

happen. In that case, we might have an anomaly under which quite large settlements were excluded from the programme. As I have said already, when we make the designations we intend to consult on them. We do not intend to seek arithmetical precision in every instance; we will consider local circumstances. Once the designations are established, they are likely to remain for the period between censuses at least, and possibly for much longer.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I regard that as a most unsatisfactory answer. Rural areas have great continuity and people think in terms of 100 years, not five or 10. Landlords, as some of my hon. Friends have said, will not give land away unless they have some certainty that the designated areas will remain into the future, not just for 10 years.

Mr. Curry: In the overwhelming number of areas, that will be the case. But if my hon. Friend had been asked 100 years ago whether she could anticipate the settlement patterns that would exist now, she would have had some difficulty in predicting them, and so would I.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said 10 years.

Mr. Curry: I said that the census takes place on a 10-yearly basis and we would not expect any reviews to take place in a period shorter than that. In the overwhelming number of cases, there is unlikely to be any change as a result of the census, but if we institute arrangements, we must have some mechanism for flexibility. We are constantly told not to be too rigid. I do not want to be rigid and that is why I do not want to see a situation in which there is constant change and when as soon anybody is entered in the register of births, marriages and deaths he or she can move the settlement in or out of the qualifications.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister is making very heavy weather of this. He accepts the need for a clear exemption in rural areas. Why will he not accept the case for a clear exemption in the case of section 106 agreements? The numbers involved are small, but that would give certainty to the landowner and the developer that the purpose of that land being provided cheaply is because it is for social housing in perpetuity. That is consistent with Government planning policy, so why cannot the Minister agree to it?

Mr. Curry: I have not got to my notes yet. As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned, the definition of "affordable" is not just for rented accommodation. It goes wider than that, as does the use of section 106. Existing properties under section 106 can be withheld from the scheme because it depends on voluntarily opting in. Section 106 is irrelevant in that regard. If a new site were permitted section 106 status, what would prevent all new-builds from being designated under section 106? There would be a danger that section 106 would be used automatically as an impediment to the implementation of a sensible policy of wider home ownership. When a house is sold, the grant helps to make up the market price, the sale is made only at the market price and, if the housing association sells, it gets the benefit, not the tenant, and it has to use that for the provision of new accommodation. I cannot see why that should cause a particular difficulty.
We have done our best to ensure that the provision is as sensible as possible. I have spoken to the Country Landowners Association and I have discussed the whole question with Mr. Euan Cameron. I accept that the CLA may have concerns, but I hope that I have succeeded in explaining what we are trying to achieve in the legislation.
I do not want my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South to feel neglected in his inner-city fastness. As he will know, arrangements for the voluntary right to buy are not part of the Bill. I have, however, conducted quite lengthy discussions with the housing associations about that right in an attempt to satisfy what I regard as their legitimate concerns. We have ensured already that landlords have the power to offer alternative properties for sale to tenants if they are available and if the tenants wish to buy, but there would be some difficulties in making that process a requirement of the scheme.
I know that some housing associations with properties in inner London are worried about the potential difficulties of managing mixed leasehold and tenanted developments. For existing properties, the scheme is voluntary. We have already agreed that landlords can have extra discretion to exclude homes built in the past with charitable donations. In my discussions with organisations such as the Peabody trust, William Sutton and the Guinness trust, satisfaction has been expressed. They feel that a significant part of their problems has been met.
The new right will apply to future developments. If a tenant agrees, a landlord can offer an alternative property from his stock to buy. That would also be at a discount. It would be funded by a purchase grant. If it is not possible for the landlord to offer an alternative home—for example, no alternative is available or it would be unacceptable for the landlord to move somebody else on so as to provide alternative accommodation—the circumstances are clearly different.
We are trying to provide a new right to enable tenants to buy their own homes. We must hesitate before we say that the right should be diluted by the power to exclude properties for good management reasons. Once the Bill is enacted, I shall monitor what ensues. We have had sensible discussions with the housing associations and I think that we have met the bulk of their concerns. As I have said, I want to see how the rural exemption develops. If I felt that something was not working, I would seek to put it right. I shall monitor the right-to-buy scheme. If I feel that problems are arising which had not been anticipated, or on a scale that had not been anticipated, I shall not hesitate, in consultation with housing associations, to seek a way to put things right. I want the scheme to be recognised as a practical one. I also want to open up a housing opportunity.
I accept what has been said about mixed development. I think that there is a consensus in the Chamber. We want to get away from the idea of estates comprising nothing but local authority properties, or housing association properties, especially where perhaps the most economically active or competent people move out to seek homes elsewhere. We want to try to find a way for people of different backgrounds and competences to stay in the housing that is provided and help in the process of regenerating the estate.
Our scheme has the virtue of being sensibly flexible within the framework of something that is simple, easy to understand and does not lead to a great deal of undue complexity. The proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, would be extremely tortuous, involving endless consultation and reconsultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is concerned that we might undertake reviews after 10 years. The Liberals propose two-year reviews. That would cause a great deal of uncertainty. I would be doubtful about allowing local authorities to designate at will zones in which they felt that the right to buy should not apply. I think that we have the balance about right. I commend the Government's position to the House.

Mrs. Maddock: I cannot emphasise enough the importance of getting these matters right. The approach must not be unduly bureaucratic. Despite what the Minister says about my proposals, I consider that his proposals are fairly bureaucratic. As Liberal Democrats, we believe that local authorities should have the right to say what is happening in their areas. They know what is going on. The new clause sets out criteria that local authorities would have to follow. It does not constitute a free-for-all, as the Minister claimed.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is not supporting the rights of local authorities. However, given the antics of some Labour-run local authorities, I have a little sympathy with his view that they should not be allowed to run away with their own powers.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Lady heard me say that the reason for not leaving these matters to local discretion is to avoid discrepancies between areas, with individuals feeling aggrieved that on one side of the boundary the right exists while on the other side it does not. The Opposition's approach has nothing to do with the performance of individual local authorities, whether they be Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour. We want there to be a standard and understandable national system.

Mrs. Maddock: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are differences between one area and another. Right hon. and hon. Members have explained how and why areas differ. The new clause would allow differences to be taken into account. Westmorland and Southwark are clearly not the same. The whole point of having local government is that local authorities know what is going on in their areas.
There are many views coming into the House from those who are involved in the provision of low-cost, affordable housing. They are still concerned. The Minister has not responded to all the problems. I remind him what the National Federation of Housing Associations has said. I am sure that it sent him its briefing, as it sent it to me and many other right hon. and hon. Members. The federation is concerned that the Government will fail to meet their objectives unless they provide more adequate exemptions from the right-to-buy proposals that are contained in the Bill. We know that consultation is taking place. The federation believes that if the Government do not provide more adequate exemptions the affordable


housing that they want to see created will be sold off. It is unsatisfactory for the Minister to hide behind the fact that the right will apply not to present properties and present conditions but to those of the future. We should be establishing communities that are sustainable. There is every danger that we shall take a step backwards after making some good moves forwards.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale quoted from the three questions posed by the Country Landowners Association. He did not mention what it would like the Minister to do, which is to provide greater certainty. It wrote:
There would be greater certainty if the Bill (a) provided for a once and for all exemption for schemes in existence at Royal Assent, or the date of planning permission for subsequent developments, and (b) extended the definition of rural areas to cover special situations where the exercise of a Right to Buy would harm the interests of future generations.
That view is shared by many of us.
Earlier I referred to the response of Purbeck district council, which is in Dorset. Representatives of the authority have seen the Minister. They tried to bring home to him the findings of the Department's research into the classification of rural housing markets in England. It has been found that constraints on land supply, rather than the nature of demand, in many areas are the main influence on the level of local housing opportunities. We have been trying to get that through to the Minister this afternoon. The more constraints there are on development land—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about this—the higher the price. That limits opportunities for new affordable housing.
In addition, opportunities to replace housing through the purchase of existing satisfactory housing rest on affordable prices in a given area. The Minister has said that housing associations and other social landlords will be able to buy other properties in other areas. However, those properties may not be in the areas where people work or in areas that people can get to easily. The Minister's proposal works against the idea of having housing and planning policies that are in the interests of sustainability and protecting the environment. In places such as the Lake district and Purbeck, planning is affected by the existence of sites of special scientific interest, coastal heritage sites and world heritage sites. They affect planning policy and make it difficult to replace units of housing in the same area.
The final paragraph of the letter from Purbeck council says:
Housing and Environmental Services Committee when discussing the Consultation Paper wished to stress that the views expressed …are supported across the whole political spectrum of this Council.
There is no overall control on the council. However, all the councillors agreed that they wanted the Minister to try to do something about the problems that they believed would arise if his proposals went ahead.
It is not good enough for the Minister to hide behind arguments about the housing association grant, the argument that properties with existing agreements will not be brought into the right to buy or the argument that the money will be recycled. There is evidence from the National Federation of Housing Associations that in some cases, only 50 per cent. of the money will be able to be

used again. It is likely that we shall not be able to provide new properties in the area in which existing properties have been sold, and that will be detrimental to future developments.
Unless we support some of the amendments in the group, we shall be responsible for allowing the undoing of much of the good work that has been done by developers, by those who have sold land at low prices and by those of us who believe that our housing and planning policies should be about sustainability and about supporting mixed communities. The Minister talked eloquently about why we need to have mixed communities. If that is his belief, he should look favourably on what I, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and some Conservative Members have said. We have the opportunity tonight to push the Minister further when we go into the Lobbies.
It is obvious from the debate that the new clause is unlikely to succeed. In view of that, I will support amendment No. 10 on which there will, I hope, be a vote later tonight and I will not press the new clause to a Division.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 22

DEMOCRATISATION OF SOCIAL HOUSING MANAGEMENT

'. The Corporation shall ensure that every registered social landlord at all times guarantees—
(a) the maximum democratisation of the management of the landlord's property required by the tenants, and—
(b) that a democratic and accountable structure of the management of the landlord's property shall at all times exist at least at the level of the local housing authority in which the property is based.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 23—Complaints and appeals—
'. The Corporation shall ensure that every registered social landlord at all times has a satisfactory and nationally recognised—
(a) complaints procedure, and
(b) independent procedure for appeals against decisions made by the registered social landlord.'.
Government amendment No. 29.

Mr. Hughes: The new clause follows the tenor of the previous debate, of which I heard part. I entirely endorse all the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). We want to ensure that housing policy reflects, first, the views of the users—the people who are in housing or who need housing—and, secondly, the needs of our different communities. The two new clauses specifically concern social housing management.
I declare an interest as a founder member, and member, of the management committee of a small housing association in my constituency—the Bermondsey and Rotherhithe housing association. I also have a constituency interest in the subject. The House of Commons Library has produced a report, from census


returns, that shows the amount of housing that is entirely bought or owner-occupied by virtue of a mortgage and the amount that is social housing or local authority housing.
My constituency, under its new boundaries—that is the way in which the census returns were carried out—is one of the top 10 authorities in England and Wales in terms of social housing, with a figure of 11.6 per cent. It is surrounded by many constituencies that are in the top 25. The issue we are discussing strongly—although not, of course, exclusively—affects London tenants because, in the top 25, come the new constituencies of Regent's Park and Kensington, North; Cities of London and Westminster—the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is in his place—Holborn and St. Pancras; my neighbouring seat of Vauxhall; Islington, North; Hackney, North and Stoke Newington; Hackney, South and Shoreditch; Ealing Acton and Shepherd's Bush; Camberwell and Peckham, which is to the south of my constituency and is in the borough of Southwark; Hammersmith and Fulham; Battersea; Brent, East; Islington, South and Finsbury; and Bethnal Green and Bow. There is a huge concentration of social housing and housing association housing in London. The way in which it is managed matters greatly to our constituents.
The converse is that we have—and, for economic reasons, are bound to have for the foreseeable future—one of the lowest rates of owner-occupied housing. My constituency has the lowest rate of owner-occupied housing in England and Wales—18.4 per cent.—either by means of a mortgage or fully bought. The next lowest figure is in the new Camberwell and Peckham constituency, which is next to my constituency and also in the borough of Southwark. Many of the 25 constituencies that have the least owner-occupied housing are in London.
My constituency has the lowest number of properties that are owned outright in England and Wales—just 2.5 per cent. Social housing and council housing are, and will continue to be, the principal forms of occupancy in areas such as mine.
For half their period in office, the Government said, in effect, "We are not interested in providing any new general council housing at all. We will permit councils to build an absolute minimum of housing and then only for special needs." For a period, the Government said, "We believe that social housing should be provided by housing associations." That was the tenor of debates in the 1980s.
I remember when that period came to an end. The present Secretary of State was Minister of State and there was a debate not long before the public expenditure announcement—that was three or four years ago. One Conservative Back Bencher after another said, "We do not like all this social housing because all our communities are disrupted and it is planted on us." As a result, in the following public expenditure statement, having cut the council housing budget, the Government cut the social housing budget as well. However, it is still, in theory, Government policy that, if we provide social housing, we should provide it through housing associations rather than through local authorities.
Whatever my complaints may be about local authority management—I have many complaints about Southwark's management of its housing stock, the largest

in London, which is often very poor—at least local authority housing is democratically managed. Every four years, people vote for those who will run the council and the local authority has neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. Tenants' representatives go to a central housing forum, they express their views and they are consulted on council policy. The council may not take the blindest bit of notice of what the tenants say and the tenants may get frustrated, but the process has often changed what happens for the better. In my experience, the idea of democratic accountability in social housing is still in its early infancy. I do not think that that is good enough, and my constituents who are tenants in housing association properties agree.
Some housing management associations, such as Peabody, are based in my constituency. It tries to do a good job, and it is certainly not the worst offender, but many others need a kick up the backside and to be told that they must become democratic bodies. I would go further than the Government would ever go in democratising social housing, but we must be careful not to create a two-tier, self-perpetuating management structure. I serve on a management committee, and plead guilty to playing my part in the system, but we must be careful that social housing is not managed by people who, effectively, appoint themselves. All those involved come up for rotating elections which—unless we are careful—can result in the same people being re-elected for another four years. When someone dies or retires, provision for tenant representation may be introduced, but that can be pretty thin.
The situation is worse in large housing associations. I cannot recall the relative positions in the league table, according to the number of properties that each owns, of social housing landlords. Some landlords—such as North British—have about 28, 000 properties, while those at the bottom of the league have perhaps a dozen. Many now have bigger stocks than most local authorities. My local authority has 56, 000 properties, which is the largest stock in London. There are few larger housing stocks in England—Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester may provide examples.
5.30 pm
Many social housing landlords have expanded. For example, the South London Family housing association was a small association that moved from one borough to another, although its focus has remained in south London. Many similar associations can now be found all over the country. I am proposing the new clause with the utmost sincerity because I believe that something is rotten in the state of housing association democratic management, and I speak with more than 13 years' constituency experience of dealing with the issue.
I have not sought to be a technical purist about the way in which the new clause is drafted. That was not my intention. I did not serve on the Committee, but I have read sonic of the debates. I do not claim to have read every word—that would not be believed—but I have read the key parts. The Government amendment in this group shows that they have conceded some of the points made in Committee and in and out of the House. I want to see whether we can push the Minister to go further.
The Minister may say that we must not be over-prescriptive in the Bill and that there are many things that the Government can do by secondary or delegated


powers. We are discussing the part of the Bill that says that the Housing Corporation "may issue guidance". That is a good wheeze by the Government—they delegate the guidance to someone else to issue, or do so themselves. I want to know whether the Housing Corporation will provide adequate guidance and—more important—whether that is mandatory. I understand how the Housing Corporation works. We must have a procedure that has teeth. We do not want a procedure that takes so long to implement, and which involves so much negotiation, that it becomes nothing that housing associations need be afraid of.
I have included the word "guarantees" in the new clause for a reason. I should like the law to state that the Housing Corporation
shall ensure that every registered social landlord at all times guarantees—
(a) the maximum democratisation of the management of the landlord's property required by the tenants.
It is not for me to say what tenants should have, but if they want to be consulted and to have an input on the allocations policy and the next type of property to be built, they should be able to do so.
I went to a meeting the other day called by the community worker for Hyde housing association—one of six associations developing the old Bricklayer's Arms goods yard, one end of which is outside my home in Bermondsey. We were discussing community facilities and youth facilities on the estate. At the meeting, the woman worker handed around a document inviting tenants to take part in a consultative structure for tenants. It looked as enticing as running from here to John O'Groats on the worst day of the year. The document had been duplicated, contained no detailed thought and did not look as if those involved were keen to receive a response—but it was an effort to provide some form of tenant participation.
A lot of effort has been made to try to interest people on the estate in community action. It is hard work. We must require housing associations to have structures that allow tenants to have their say. As in every form of democratic management—whether it be Parliament or housing associations—the fact that some people do not want to have their say is not a reason for preventing the rest from doing so. A third of the British electorate and half of the American electorate do not vote in general elections, but that does not mean that we should not have elections. If 10 per cent. of people participate, that is 10 per cent. more than in many places at the moment.
If housing associations are given more responsibility, they will continue in that way—whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I may want—for the next few years. It is not possible to turn the housing policy of Britain around in two seconds.

Mr. Raynsford: We can try.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It does not take two seconds—it takes a Parliament at least. If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) were responsible for the matter, he would find that out. The policy can be changed over five years, and I would expect the policy to be aimed in a radically different direction within that time under a new Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I will end up on the winning side

of the argument, probably in collaboration with others. Whereas in the past the majority of social housing has been council property, housing associations are now an equally large player. There is no reason why associations should not have the same sort of democratic accountability as councils.
Many people who become tenants of housing associations do not positively elect to become such tenants—they are nominated by the local authority from the waiting list. They do not opt into something they think will have less management because that is what they want—they simply want a home—but once they are in their home, they want to have a say in how it is run.
I have been a private tenant. It was a frustrating experience because I had a remote landlord who operated through a managing agent. To get anything done was a nightmare. That was neither the worst managing agent nor the worst landlord by any means. All people in social housing ought to be treated alike in terms of opportunities to influence what goes on.
Another issue is the level at which accountability should be based. I have tried to be fairly precise. The new clause says:
a democratic and accountable structure of the management of the landlord's property shall at all times exist at least at the level of the local housing authority in which the property is based.
I shall give the example that I cited earlier. One of the large players in the social housing market in my constituency is the South London Family housing association. London and Quadrant is another. The offices of the South London Family housing association are on the other side of Crystal Palace, over the top of the hill. They are not in Southwark. When I had occasion, with one of my councillor colleagues from Surrey docks, to argue the case of a shared-ownership occupant who faced repossession, we had to go to Crystal Palace to see the director of the housing association. That was fine for me—I have a vehicle and I could organise it—but it would not have been fine for a single parent with two children who relied on public transport or for a family out of work who would have had to hike around south London.
The management must be at least in the borough or district where the housing is—and I really mean management, not a letter box. Nor do I mean an office at which the housing officer is in attendance once a week. Even if the housing association has only 20 properties in Southwark, Lewisham or Greenwich—or in any other district, such as Hereford, Christchurch, North Devon or Huntingdon—people should not have to go outside the borough boundaries to get to the forum in which they can talk with other tenants about what is going on. That is the issue.
You will know perfectly well from your city, Madam Deputy Speaker, that even if the offices are within the city boundary, they may still be a long way away. They could be half an hour or an hour's journey each way. In rural areas, it could be a real hike. There should be access to management within each local authority area. Some districts are small, but the boroughs in metropolitan England and London and the Welsh unitary authorities are very big. They should be the minimum management areas, although I hope that it will be possible to go further. I hope that the Minister can be encouraging about that.
New clause 23 makes two points, one of which the Government have to a certain extent accepted in their amendment. I am grateful for that. The Government have


argued—I have supported them—that there should be national and independently recognisable standards; people should be able to complain about public authorities, have their complaints dealt with and have their cases adjudicated independently. Amendment No. 29 would require the Housing Corporation to bring forward
the procedures to be adopted to deal with complaints by tenants against a landlord
that are nationally recognised. It is important that tenants should know the procedures.
It has been argued that people may end up in a place where they did not intend to be. They should not be disadvantaged when they complain about where they end up. We must have a citizens charter-type standard for tenants' right to complain, whether the complaint is about delays in repairs or about a housing officer not doing his job properly—although I do not say that that is a regular occurrence. The tenant must know that the complaints procedure will work.
The Government have not responded to the second point made in new clause 23. I have tabled another amendment, which relates to local authority housing. Social landlords and local authorities can take categorical and definitive decisions which can have fairly conclusive effects on people's lives. A few weeks ago, I went with a councillor colleague to see a housing association director about some constituents of mine. They were a young couple with a youngster and they could not keep up the payments on a shared ownership property—part buy, part rent. If they managed to pay the rent, the building society threatened repossession and if they managed to pay the mortgage the housing association pressed them for the rent. The husband had lost his job, so the expected income had not been sustained.
5.45 pm
There came a time when the housing association told the couple that they had to go. That was understandable. Before people get into costly litigation, sometimes without legal aid—although not in this case—there must be a chance for someone to ask whether the decision was justified and reasonable. That should happen independent of the landlord. There is a strong case, which applies equally to local authorities, for saying that the person who makes the decision should not be the person to whom the appeal is made.
One of the most frequent complaints—it is made more strongly about councils than about social landlords—is that, when people appeal against a decision, they have to appeal to the same officers who made the original decision. People do not feel that their appeal has been properly heard. They may be offered a property that is not suitable for them. The two most obvious complaints are made to me every week at my surgery. For 13 years, at no surgery have I not had those complaints. Goodness knows how many surgeries that is, but it is an enormous amount.
One complaint is, "I have been offered a property and it is not in a fit state for me to move into. It needs work done so I have turned it down and I have been told that that is an unreasonable refusal. I have appealed, but it has gone to an internal committee and the decision has been upheld."
The other complaint is related to personal circumstances. Someone may say, "It is a lovely flat, but it is six miles away from where my children have just settled in primary school." Someone else may say, "It is a lovely flat, but I am a carer for my mother-in-law and she lives half a mile from where I now live and she would be two or three bus journeys away from where I am being offered a place." Someone else may say, "It is a lovely flat, but it is round the corner from my ex-husband, against whom I had an order when the marriage was coming to an end." The Minister knows that such real issues arise.
What may be a subjective view may not be upheld by the landlord. The landlord has the job of letting the property. The appeal may not go to the allocations officer, but to the manager, the deputy manager or even to a few people. Even so, it does not look fair and people do not believe that it is fair. Appeals have to be heard by someone outside the management. Independent appeals procedures exist for everything else, including police complaints, insurance, banking and the ombudsman service. On behalf of hundreds, probably thousands, of past, present and prospective tenants in my constituency alone and, I am sure, in every other constituency in England and Wales, I am asking for an independent procedure for appeals against decisions made by the registered social landlord.
It follows from what I have said that the amendment in the name of the Secretary of State is welcome. I shall support it, as will my hon. Friends. It meets part of new clause 23, but not the other part. I hope that I shall receive a sympathetic response to both new clause 22 and new clause 23 and that the Minister will see fit to give tenants the democratic rights that some of them may want and many do not have. I hope that he will give the Housing Corporation, the housing associations and all registered social landlords a kick up the backside in the direction of democracy and make sure that we have an independent complaints and appeals procedure.

Mr. Curry: Amendment No. 29 gives effect to the commitment given in Committee to broaden the list of topics on which the Housing Corporation may issue guidance to tenants of registered social landlords. The amendment will enable guidance to be issued on the services that may be provided to tenants and in relation to the landlord complaints procedures.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has pointed out that his constituency is dominated by council housing, not by social housing, and that problems occur in his constituency that may not occur with quite the same intensity elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman wished to draw the attention of hon. Members to the problems that arise in an area that has those characteristics—and he has done us a service in doing so. The Government are concerned—as is the hon. Gentleman—that there should be effective consultation within the context of effective management.
There is nothing worse than a local authority that does not carry out the necessary management tasks effectively—such as filling in the voids, ensuring that there is a proper turnover of social housing and responding to complaints about what happens on the estates. No doubt the hon. Gentleman followed the debates about anti-social tenants and the problems that arise on estates. As we will discuss tomorrow, this has become one of the prime concerns of social landlords.
New clause 22 seeks to establish in statute the guarantee that every registered landlord has a framework in place whereby all decisions affecting the management of the landlord properties reflect the views and the wishes of the tenants. It also requires that accountability structures be introduced at the same level as the local authority in whose area the homes are based. I have some difficulty with the wording of the new clause, and the hon. Gentleman has said that he would not go to the stake over the wording.
The concept is open to several interpretations, which indicates that it is a difficult one with which to grapple. However, we must pin it down to some form of legislative language—we have no choice. One of the things that united the Committee was the feeling that lawyers should not be given unnecessary work—and even my hon. Friends who are lawyers subscribed to that view, no doubt out of solidarity. I would not wish to go down a course that is too complicated.
I share a lot of the sentiment that is behind the proposal. Tenants have an important part to play in the management of their homes. However, the degree to which they will want to get involved will vary—some people wish to be consulted rather than to be involved in the day-to-day management; it is a question of different habits and traditions. To some degree, it is a reflection of the sorts of problems that emerge and the size of the estate.
We have supported this concept and we have tried to take it forward for many years. Tenants should be able to make their views known and ensure that they are reflected in the decisions that affect their properties. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey recognised, there are many ways in which this can be achieved. We cannot draw up a blueprint because arrangements will need to reflect local and wider circumstances. The Housing Corporation is committed to tenant participation, and I have emphasised that matter in my meetings with it.
The tenants' guarantee requires registered social landlords to keep tenants fully informed on all aspects of the management of their homes. It also requires landlords to seek the views of tenants and to give them the fullest consideration when taking decisions on the management of their homes. Landlords have been actively encouraged to establish forums through which tenants can express their views and can comment on housing management policies and practices.
Many landlords have gone further than that and they have appointed tenants to their management committees, which has been welcomed. Tenants have an opportunity to influence decisions. They are represented on the boards of all large-scale voluntary transfer associations and I am sure that the new local housing companies will wish to follow that practice. Tenants are an important group whose requirements need to be recognised and whose views must be taken into account.
Hon. Members on the Committee who went through the tergivisations of the funding of housing associations will know that they are not the only interest group. The funders, be they private or public, need to be satisfied that their investment is being protected. The wider local community and prospective tenants also have an interest to ensure that their needs are protected. Given these wide-ranging interests, it is important that no single group should be in the majority in the management of registered

social landlord stock. The hon. Gentleman is not pushing in that direction—he is concerned about the general experience of consultation.
The clause talks about the maximum democratisation of the management. As I have said, it would be difficult to enshrine this in legislation. The important point is that tenants should be encouraged and able to see that their views are taken into account when decisions are taken. One way of doing this is by enabling them to have a positive input to local management decisions, and the arrangements that we are encouraging will do that.
The second part of the clause calls for a democratic and an accountable structure—at least at the level of the local authority in whose area the property is based. This is open to a number of interpretations. If it means that registered social landlords should have tenant consultation schemes equivalent to local authorities, it assumes that all local authorities have such schemes in the first place. Some local authorities may have such schemes—and they may provide a framework to follow—but other local authorities may not. There are still a number of local authorities with a poor track record in this regard.
If that means that the management arrangement should be tailored to fit local authority areas, it would be difficult for housing associations whose stock straddles local authority boundaries. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Peabody Trust which, as it is one of the largest housing associations, would experience precisely that circumstance.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I referred to the fact that the Peabody Trust and other housing associations straddle many boroughs. Therefore, it is unfair and unrealistic to expect people to participate with people who have no commonality of interest, other than the fact that they have the same landlord. It would be the same as asking people who are Barratt's homes purchasers, but at the opposite end of the kingdom, to be in the same group. It is about having people in a sense of community, where the landlord is the same and where they are within a boundary that they understand and recognise.

Mr. Curry: I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is making. As he would acknowledge, it is a difficult concept to enshrine in legislation. I am quite willing to draw the attention of the Housing Corporation to the need to get a level of consultation that reflects a commonality of interests—a focus on things that matter to a group of people and that is not dissipated by being so general that it loses any practical purpose and becomes a token institutionalised process rather than something that means something.
The question of accountability for a registered social landlord is a different concept from that for a local authority—the hon. Gentleman will accept that point because he is widely experienced in this field. The management needs to be accountable, it needs to listen to the different interest groups to find out their views and it needs to explain the reasons behind its decisions. It also has to consider all the interest groups.
While I agree with the sentiments in the amendment—and I am grateful that we have narrowed down the purpose behind it—I find it difficult to accept that the concept should be put into law in this way. If the hon. Gentleman does not persist with the amendment, I shall


undertake to discuss with the Housing Corporation how it can try to incorporate his message in the discussions it has with the housing associations.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister happen to have on him, or could he lay his hands on, figures that show the percentage of associations that have the forms of consultation to which he referred—such as tenants on their management committees or regular constitutional forums that tenants attend? If the Minister does not have that information to hand, will he acquire it and let us have it in due course?

Mr. Curry: I do not have that information on me, but I shall do my best to acquire it and let the hon. Gentleman have it in due course.
I believe that new clause 23 is unnecessary. Under the tenants guarantee—which was issued under section 36A of the Housing Associations Act 1985—the corporation already requires landlords to operate and publicise fair and accessible complaints procedures for tenants and applicants. Procedures are also in place to provide for appeals to the landlord committee of management or a group of members not involved in the complaint.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about wishing to have some completely independent recourse, and that is why we will provide in the Bill for complainants to have access to a statutory independent housing ombudsman. We are filling a deficit. It is a final recourse that will be utterly independent and beyond reproach. It is therefore sensible to try to get the complaints dealt with independently and in-house, and to provide for there to be a further appeal beyond that if it does not work. I suggest that, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman might not have to persist with his amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister had finished his speech. Is that correct, or is he giving way?

Mr. Curry: If it would help the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I am sure that I could construct a further sentence that would mean that I had given way.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's co-operation.
The one problem with the ombudsman procedure is that it might reasonably be expected to take so long that it was too late to influence the decision. Someone might complain about the allocation of a property, for instance, and by the time the ombudsman had ruled in that person's favour the property might have been allocated to someone else, making the complaint a lost cause. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that again.

6 pm

Mr. Curry: I will certainly do so, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we are currently reviewing the ombudsman's service to local authorities generally, and one aspect that we wish to consider is the time that it takes

to obtain results for people. When we have established the arrangements, our priority will be to ensure a rapid service. The complaints that are raised in this context, being more specific, may be susceptible of more rapid treatment than the more general matters dealt with by the local authority ombudsman. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content with that.
I commend the Government amendment, which fulfils the commitment given to the Standing Committee.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The Minister always sounds plausible. He tells us eloquently that everything is all right, that we should not worry, that matters are developing in the way that we want and that everyone will be happy; but the Government are making a major change in their housing policy.
I should like more councils to be able to build social housing. I am a product of a council estate. The rent collector would come along and make sure that everything was fine, and if we had any problems we could tell him about them. Those who were not happy with his response could go to the tenants' association, which would consider the issues that had been raised; if that did not work, people could go to their local councillor. We had democratic accountability. The Government, however, are moving towards the private rented sector, and into realms into which the pendulum swings in favour of the private landlord and against the tenant. Tenants may well be fully informed of their rights, but will often be very fearful because of the time scale applying to some tenancies.
There is a difference between being informed and being involved. I am glad that we are having this debate, and I accept that the Government amendment deals with the position in some small respects, but tenants feel vulnerable none the less. No choice is involved in the move from local authorities to housing associations. They need to feel that they have the same rights as they would have if they had been with a local authority—the same ability to make their voices heard in regard to the development of their community.
Although there has been a move from local authorities to housing associations, there has been a cut in housing association grant. Because of that, some of the smaller associations have had to become part of the larger ones, and that has removed the point of accountability. As has been said, if people are to be involved, they must be close to the decision-making level. Democracy works only if it is meaningful and enables tenants to be involved.
I do not think that the parameters set by the Government will help private tenants, and I want stronger guarantees to ensure that they are involved. Many enlightened local authorities have devolved tenants' rights to estate offices and local tenants' associations, and are well versed in the development of policy to secure greater involvement; but we are now seeing a shift towards a body that has no such experience. Safeguards should be built into the legislation. We are talking not about increasing the regulation of private landlords, but about trying to create the environment that the Government say they want to create—an environment in which people are involved in democratic institutions, and taking responsibility for their lives in the neighbourhoods that they will inhabit. We have already observed the democratic deficit caused by the number of people who do not become involved in either local or general elections. How will a move to the private rented sector secure the greater involvement that we want?
The Government would not support what I consider to be the ideal solution. What is wrong with returning the main aspect of housing policy to local authorities, and enabling them to build more houses? There are more than 9, 000 names on the waiting list in Bradford, and there is no guarantee that the private rented sector will meet that need, particularly through the Bill. I am not entirely satisfied that the Government's proposals meet the requirements in new clause 22. I do not think that tenants will be able to participate fully, although they can be involved to an extent. They will feel more isolated than they did before.

Mr. Raynsford: I broadly agree with the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who tabled new clauses 22 and 23. I do not agree with every point that he made, but he probably would not expect me to. He is right to highlight the case for increasing tenant involvement.
Let me correct an earlier omission by declaring an interest that appears in the Register of Members' Interests and which I declared at the beginning of the Committee stage. I am a consultant to HACAS, the social housing agency.
The case for increasing tenant involvement is obvious. It is based on justice—on the assumption that those occupying homes have every right to be consulted and involved in key decisions about how their homes are designed, built, maintained and managed. It is also based on efficiency, however. There is considerable evidence, developed over recent years by the many organisations that work with tenant groups, that active tenant participation can achieve a better-managed, more efficient performance in many areas—including some where there have been huge problems—than more traditional housing management structures. For those reasons, it is in everyone's interests for us to try to promote the case for more active tenant involvement and participation. We should give tenants more opportunities to participate to the degree that they wish in decisions affecting their homes. To that extent, I agree whole-heartedly with what the Minister said.
This is where I part company with the Minister. The Government have acted in a way that entirely contradicts those principles in rejecting, in Committee, an amendment that we tabled to make it clear that tenant-led organisations would not be debarred from being registered as social landlords under the new regime that the Bill would introduce. I find it extraordinary that the Government should take such a stance. There are a number of examples of tenant-led organisations that have been registered as social landlords, and have proved highly successful.
There is an obvious example north of the border. I am not one of those who believe that we can concentrate on a hermetically sealed part of the United Kingdom, and ignore what goes on elsewhere. I believe that there is a great deal of good practice in Scotland, from which we should seek to learn. The Glasgow housing co-ops are a fine example of such good practice: they are tenant-led, tenant-managed organisations that have taken over housing stock and are running it well. Closer to home, in the constituency represented by the right hon. Member for

the City and Westminster—who was an assiduous member of the Committee—is the example of the Walterton and Elgin community housing project.

Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his felicitations, but that housing association is in the constituency of Westminster, North.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful for that correction. It is in the borough that the right hon. Gentleman represents. It took over the management of some 900 properties from Westminster city council. It is a successful tenant-led organisation.
Across the border in Kensington and Chelsea, the Government have recently given their blessing to the proposal to pass responsibility for housing management to a tenant management association covering that borough's housing stock. There are many other illustrations from all over London and the whole country. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey knows of the activities of several housing co-ops in south-east London with which he has been associated and with which I am associated. They are fine examples of tenant-led organisations doing an excellent job.
It is extraordinary that a Government who pay lip service to tenant participation should have voted down an amendment that said that nothing should prevent an organisation that is controlled by a majority of tenants from being registered as an approved social landlord. We do not say that every organisation must be so constituted, or even that that should be the norm, but that such bodies should eligible to be registered. Of course, the Housing Corporation will want to examine them to find whether they are efficiently run and properly constituted before deciding whether to register them, but they should not be ineligible for registration simply because they have a majority of tenants on their committees. That was the effect of the Government's vote against our amendment in Committee.
We were given several specious arguments. We were told that because new social landlords set up under the Bill would be predominantly bodies interested in taking over local authority housing, it would be inappropriate for them to be tenant-led. Walterton and Elgin community homes, which is tenant-led, took over Westminster city council's housing. There is no reason why others should not do the same.
We were told that there needed to be a balance of different interests on management committees. There was even a hint that tenants would not be able to take responsibility for all the finances. What nonsense; lenders would not lend money to organisations in which they did not have confidence. They would consider them closely to find whether they have proper business plans and sound managements in place. The Housing Corporation, the regulatory body, is also there to ensure that such bodies are properly run. There are lots of safeguards. The inference that tenant-led organisations cannot be trusted is unfortunate and we wholly repudiate it. It is wrong and a mistake. The Government have made a serious error of judgment in taking that line.
The Minister told the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that he would discuss with the Housing Corporation ways in which good practice could be encouraged. The problem is that the Housing Corporation


is constrained by the Government, who are refusing to let it register tenant-led bodies. On the one hand, the Minister offers consultation with the Housing Corporation to solve the problem, but, on the other, he is creating a problem by not allowing it to register tenant-led organisations.

Mr. Curry: When I suggested that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was not focusing on tenant-led organisations, he nodded his agreement. He is more concerned about the consultation of tenants and their landlords in general and about local authorities in particular. In respect of the Housing Corporation, we would obviously want to consult the local authority associations.

Mr. Raynsford: I take that point, but if the Minister articulates, as he did earlier to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, the view that there should be an option for tenants to participate to the degree that they choose and that they should be free to decide and not constrained within rigid patterns—that is my understanding of what he said—why is he not prepared to allow tenant-led organisations to be registered? We are not saying that that would become the norm or that it will happen very often, but where tenants wish it, have the ability and commitment to do so, and where lenders are happy to lend, why should not such bodies be eligible to be registered?
That is significantly inconsistent with other Government approaches. They gave council tenants the right to manage. If they believe that council tenants should have the right to manage—I have mentioned already the Kensington and Chelsea tenants who were enabled to take over the management of their council housing under this arrangement—why is it inconceivable that a tenant-led organisation should be able to own its homes? What is the distinction? The Government's position on the right to manage is profoundly suspect because while they support in theory a right to manage for council tenants, as we will point out tomorrow when we discuss leasehold, Ministers are seeking to take away the right to manage that we gave leaseholders in Committee.
Irrespective of whether tenants are in charge or in a majority on the committee, we need to increase their opportunities to play a role in the management of their homes and to influence the practices and policies of the organisations that provide their housing. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned housing associations in south-east London. He referred to some by name and I hope that he was not referring to them when he said that he thought that there were a lot of problems and that something was rotten in the management of some housing associations. My experience of those that he mentioned in south-east London—the London and Quadrant, Hyde, and South London Family housing associations—is that they are highly responsible, well-run organisations that are, in general, responsive. I do not claim that they get everything right; every big organisation makes mistakes. They are good examples of reputable organisations trying to do an excellent job. However, the key point is that they are getting large—some very large. It is important that

they should always be thinking about ways of listening more carefully to the views and concerns of their tenants so that they keep in touch.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The rottenness is in the fact that in the sector that is growing most quickly, there are no guarantees of democratic representation. It is still a patrician system that depends on the housing association concerned deciding to do it. It is led from the top down rather than from the bottom up. That is why it is down to legislation and the policy of the Housing Corporation to set the rules with which, I am sure, housing associations would willingly comply.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful for that clarification. I am sure that it is his experience, as it has been mine, that the associations that he mentioned have been in many ways exemplary in their operation. They are getting larger and it is important that they should always be thinking of ways in which they can ensure that they remain responsive to their customers.
I received a splendid testimonial for Hyde housing association when I was visiting Southampton, which is some 70 miles from its headquarters in south-east London on the edge of my constituency. I got positive feedback about its work because it has an effective local committee and takes consulting and involving tenants locally seriously. There is no reason why size should be a bar to good tenant involvement. It is a question of good practice and it is important that we should encourage that. We should ensure that social housing agents of whatever size or sort are, wherever possible, reminded of the need to be as responsive as possible to the aspirations and hopes of their tenants.
The Minister briefly referred to Government amendment No. 29 as responding to concerns expressed in Committee. We raised in Committee the importance of the Housing Corporation giving good guidance to housing associations on the standard of housing management, not least in relation to tenants with special needs. We were talking especially of vulnerable tenants and those who are housed under the care in the community policy. We had quite a debate on the subject in Committee and the Minister agreed to take it away, think about it and come back to us. He has come back with an amendment that refers to management and services to tenants. I hope that he will confirm that those services will cover the whole range, including those necessary to help some of the most vulnerable tenants who require support and care, as well as simply a home over their head in the sense of the normal housing management service.

Mr. Curry: Yes.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful for that confirmation, which resolves the dilemma. I welcome the Government's response to our amendment and the Minister's confirmation that it will have as broad a remit as we intended.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister was helpful and conciliatory in what he said. I shall take him up on the more explicit offer that he made and ask him to talk matters through with the Housing Corporation. I will also pursue that route separately and, with the leave of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock),


I will come with her to talk through the ways in which we can make practical differences. The best way to proceed would be for the Minister to do what Ministers are always willing to do and keep the matter under review. Ministers are willing to do that because it is not normally a party problem as they are not in the same job at the end of the period to which they commit themselves.
The test is whether housing associations respond to the mood clearly expressed in all corners of the House. They must set standards that allow the maximum participation, the maximum good practice and the maximum belief on the part of the tenants that the system is, independently, in their interests and in their favour.
On that basis, I shall not put my new clauses to the vote, although I anticipate that the Minister will want to put his amendment to the vote, when I shall vote for it.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 2, line 1, leave out
'does not trade for profit'
and insert
'is non-profit-making'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 61 and 62.

Mr. Curry: We now embark on a marathon of Government amendments that fulfil commitments made in Committee. I shall give the basic bones of what we propose.
Amendments Nos. 60 and 62 provide a clear definition of non-profit-making bodies for the purposes of eligibility for registration with the corporation. Amendment No. 61 is a minor drafting change.
Amendment No. 62 re-enacts the provisions in the Housing Associations Act 1985, which defines a body as non profit-making if it does not trade for profit, or its constitution or rules prohibit the issue of capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate prescribed by the Treasury. The amendment was tabled to provide cover for any existing registered association that may have the power to pay interest or dividend at the rate prescribed by the Treasury. I am sure that the amendments will find favour with the House.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, the amendment responds to suggestions proposed in Committee. It confirms that organisations providing social housing should be non profit-making organisations.
We welcome the amendment and think it is appropriate. We are pleased that the Government have not proceeded with the ill-considered plans contained in their White Paper published last summer, allowing profit-making organisations to compete with housing associations and other social landlords for social housing grant—as we must come to know what was previously known as housing association grant. I shall not risk your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, by venturing my thoughts on those titles.
The key issue is that social housing should be provided by non-profit-making organisations. We have a wealth of good housing associations and other social landlords in this country, and others are likely to be created in future—hopefully, some of them will have active tenant involvement. There is no need to jumble up their role with that of the perfectly legitimate, but different, role of profit-making organisations, which should rightly provide what is known as privately rented housing.
We want to see more private investment in good-quality, private rented housing. It is not appropriate to confuse that with the provision of social housing, which should be undertaken by organisations that are clearly non-profit-making. The amendments make that clear—we strongly support them and trust that they are confirmation that the Government have finally abandoned their ill-conceived plans to extend social housing grant to profit-making bodies.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:No. 61, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'the following' and insert
'those specified in subsection (3)'.
No. 62, in line 10, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section a body is non-profit-making if—
(a) it does not trade for profit, or
(b) its constitution or rules prohibit the issue of capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate prescribed by the Treasury for the purposes of section 1(1) (b) of the Housing Associations Act 1985.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'after' to end of line 40 and insert
'a disposal by the landlord to the tenants by way of sale or lease or on shared ownership terms;'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 64.

Mr. Curry: The amendments bring the permissible purposes of registered social landlords—a concept with which we became familiar in Committee—into line with the right-to-acquire provisions. They ensure that permissible purposes—which sound more exciting than they are—are consistent with the provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
We made it clear in Committee that we do not want to make significant further changes to the permissible purposes of registered social landlords. We would, however, be prepared to listen to well-defined and well-justified extensions that could be included in subsequent secondary legislation. We discussed what would happen if there were a launderette in a block of flats, and I said that we would take a sensible and pragmatic view on the subject. The amendment fulfils our commitment to do so.

Mr. Raynsford: We accept the spirit in which the Minister moved the amendment. We highlighted specific issues, such as the ability of registered social landlords to carry out ancillary operations that might be described as commercial—for example, a launderette or a charity shop. In his letter to me on the subject, the Minister said that


he was content that those points were covered by the legislation. On that understanding, I am happy to support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 2, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 43.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 3

REGISTRATION

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 3, line 17, leave out from 'registration' to end of line 20.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 4

REMOVAL FROM THE REGISTER

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.

No. 67, in line 12, at end insert—
'( ) Before removing a body from the register of social landlords under subsection (4) the Corporation shall consult the local authorities in whose area the body operates; and the Corporation shall also inform those authorities of its decision.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 5

APPEAL AGAINST DECISION ON REMOVAL

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 4, line 22, after 'Corporation' insert
'—
(a) not to register it as a social landlord, or
(b)''.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 69 and 70.

Mr. Curry: Clause 5 permits an organisation to appeal to the High Court against a decision by the corporation to remove it or not to remove it from the register of social landlords. The amendments extend that right of appeal to cases in which an application for registration has been refused by the corporation.
Amendment No. 68 amends clause 5(1) to include the extended right of appeal.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are technical: they amend subsections (2) and (3) of clause 5 respectively to ensure that their meaning is not inadvertently changed following the introduction of amendment No. 68.
Clause 5 provides a right to appeal to the High Court, where a registered social landlord is aggrieved at a decision to remove it, or refuse to remove it, from the register of social landlords. The amendments extend that right of appeal where an organisation is aggrieved at a decision not to include it on the register. The amendments reflect the commitment given in Committee.

Mrs. Maddock: I support the Government's amendments, as they are identical, in all but phrasing, to those that I moved in Committee. I assure those

hon. Members who were not present for the Committee's deliberations that we had very interesting and mostly amicable and sensible discussions. However, we never knew what the Government's response would be. The Minister often said that he agreed with us in principle, and that perhaps he would have the provisions in question rewritten. Occasionally, he shocked us—the first time it happened, I almost fell off my chair—and accepted an amendment as written.
The Minister agreed to consider these matters and to return to discuss them with hon. Members. I am very pleased that he has done so. The amendment gives a body that has been refused registration as a social landlord the right to appeal to the High Court. The Bill confers the same right on any body that is threatened with removal from the register. I am pleased that the Minister has introduced the measure, which has my whole-hearted support.

Mr. Curry: I merely wish to remark that the spectacle of the hon. Lady threatening to fall off her chair was so distressing that I sought to limit to the absolute minimum the number of future occasions upon which I would agree with her amendments, so as to ensure that she did not suffer any irreparable damage. As she has said, I undertook to consider the spirit of the amendments proposed in Committee and to reintroduce them in a form that was consistent with the phraseology and the purpose of the Bill. I hope that the group of amendments achieves that aim.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 4, line 25, after `brought' insert
'against a decision relating to the removal of a body from the register'.
No. 70, in page 4, line 28, after 'brought' insert
'against a decision relating to the removal of a body from the register'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Schedule 1

REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS: REGULATION

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 111, line 41, after first 'of' insert 'remuneration or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 128.

Mr. Curry: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 1 govern the payment of benefits by a registered social landlord to its officers and employees. The amendments clarify the position for a registered social landlord to pay remuneration, including loss of earnings, to its committee members.
We are anxious to ensure that the quality of people who serve on the committees of housing associations and now of social registered landlords is high. We draw people from different walks of life with different expertise. In order to attract better qualified people with particular expertise, we must look at the possibility of their not being unduly penalised by their willingness to serve on committees of housing associations or of registered social landlords. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Raynsford: This will not be a simple matter of my thanking the Minister for moving an amendment that


we proposed in slightly different terms in Committee. The amendment raises a serious policy issue regarding the future of what was known traditionally as the voluntary housing movement. It was known by that name because housing associations were governed by voluntary committees comprising people who served unpaid. They believed in the activities of the organisation, in the same way as members of local authorities did, and believed that it was in the public interest to serve in that manner.
The Minister's comments imply that the amendment opens the door to the payment of remuneration—including, in his words, the reimbursement of expenses to such people. That is a major policy departure, and I do not believe that he should be presenting it as a small technical amendment at Report stage if he envisages a framework in which housing associations and social landlords will be empowered to pay remuneration to their committee members in future.
There has been considerable debate about the issue within the housing association movement in the past two years, when issues of governance were at the forefront of its deliberations. Although there were strong advocates of remuneration for members, there has been an overwhelming response from voluntary committee members all over the country who oppose the concept of payment. A number of people have spoken to me in extremely strong terms about how insulted they would feel if payment were introduced. They believe strongly in the voluntary principle: they give their time voluntarily out of a sense of public obligation.
We should not confuse such people with those who are appointed to quangos because they think that they can make a little bit on the side while helping the party. Many housing association committee members are particularly concerned about the measure, because they believe that it is part of an attempted "quangocratisation" of the housing association movement. The Minister will be well aware that the Nolan committee has examined housing associations, and they have every reason to believe that that sort of scrutiny is being applied to their activities. That is all the more reason for them to want to stick to the well-established principle that their work is undertaken voluntarily, for the public good and in the public interest.
The wording of amendment No. 127 is somewhat curious. It simply inserts the words "remuneration or" into a rather detailed schedule that spells out what can or cannot be paid to officers and other members of housing associations and of social landlords. As I said earlier, if it is a major new departure—which is what it appears to be—it should have been introduced at an earlier stage. It should have been discussed in Committee, and the Government should have spelt out why they were seeking to make that policy departure.
The Minister may say that the amendment is simply about compensating people for loss of earnings. However, he referred to remuneration, including compensation for loss of earnings. If that is so, he is presenting a serious policy change to the House. I think that we are owed a full explanation of why the Government have made that change. It is not in line with the views expressed by the majority of people in the housing association movement, and it certainly does not accord with the views of the National Federation of Housing Associations.
I am very surprised that the Minister has brought the measure before the House in this curious manner. I hope that he will explain it fully, and, hopefully, confirm that

he does not intend to change the long-established and well respected policy of people serving as members of housing association committees in a voluntary, unpaid capacity.

Mrs. Maddock: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I am surprised that we are considering the amendment in this context, when it is part of a much wider debate about how people are remunerated for their services.
I think that it is important that people are able to take part in the democratic process and in decisions regarding the distribution of public money whatever their means. That is a very broad issue, and the Government intend to deal with it in only five minutes in the context of the amendment. People receive no remuneration for being school governors, although council members sometimes receive payment. People who are members of health boards, working one day a week, receive £5,000 a year. We must examine that policy issue, but we should not necessarily do so today via the amendment.
I do not agree totally with the hon. Member for Greenwich that people should serve on housing associations in a voluntary, unpaid capacity. I am sure that there are people who serve on a voluntary basis and who lose financially as a result. If people are to participate in the democratic process and to make decisions about how public money is spent, they must have the freedom to do so whatever their means.
Although I do not agree totally with the hon. Gentleman, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. He has ventured into an area that is much wider than remuneration for those who volunteer to work for housing association committees.

Mr. Curry: I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich is making a meal out of a snack. The amendment has no sinister purpose: we are not trying to change the ethos of the housing association movement. I constantly meet housing association committee members. I recognise their valuable work, and the fact that they perform that work voluntarily. Such people come from all walks of life, and are of all political persuasions. I have met merchant bankers who are just as heavily involved as those who work in social services, the probation service or other community-based activities.
The amendment seeks simply to make it clear that housing associations would not be acting illegally if they were to make payments for certain purposes. The proposal to pay for loss of earnings came from the National Federation of Housing Associations, although we thought it sensible to extend that somewhat.
The amendment makes remuneration possible; it requires no obligation. It is not an encouragement to pay. I would not wish to do that. Like the hon. Member for Greenwich, I value the spirit of co-operation that animates the housing association movement. However, we are trying to encourage people who may not be earning major salaries to become involved. It is not the merchant bankers who will need remuneration, but those who earn relatively small sums of money and who may find it difficult to give up their time without being paid. The amendment seeks to ensure that people in those circumstances should not be discouraged from taking an active role in the housing association movement.
The amendment is discretionary, not obligatory. It intends no ethos change, but simply to ensure that certain actions by housing associations would not be illegal if they were necessary. It is not expected to change the modus operandi of a valuable movement that is based on voluntary service.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 128, in page 112, line 20, after first 'of' insert 'remuneration or'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 121, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert—
'( ) Any such inquiry shall be conducted by one or more persons appointed by the Corporation.
( ) If one person is appointed he must be a person who is not a member or an employee of the Corporation and has not been such a member or employee within the previous five years; and if more than one person is appointed at least one of them must be such a person.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 130 to 133 and 74 to 76.

Mr. Curry: We now come to a more lengthy group of amendments, which none the less fulfils the obligation that I gave in Committee to reflect upon certain commitments.
Paragraphs (20) and (21) of schedule 1 enable the corporation to appoint a person to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of a registered social landlord or carry out such an inquiry. Amendment No. 129 amends paragraphs (20) and (21) to provide that the corporation cannot conduct the inquiry itself or appoint an employee to conduct it by himself. As I said in Committee, due to the curiosities of parliamentary draftsmanship, that could mean himself or herself. I would not wish the wording of the amendment to offend any feminist sentiment.
When the corporation appoints more than one person to conduct an inquiry, one person may be an employee or ex-employee of the corporation. Amendments Nos. 130 to 132 cover the arrangements to be followed when more than one person is appointed, particularly with regard to the provision of reports.
Amendment No. 133 extends the enforcement power covering requests for information under clause 30 to include the provision of information requested by a person conducting an inquiry.
Clause 29 gives the corporation power to serve a notice requiring a registered social landlord, or subsidiary, to provide information for any purpose connected with the discharge of its functions.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 76 are technical amendments, which are necessary to ensure that the corporation, or the person conducting an inquiry on its behalf, can obtain information or documents.
Amendment No. 75, which replaces clause 29(5), seeks to clarify the limits in the powers of the corporation to obtain information held by solicitors and bankers of registered social landlords.
In a nutshell, paragraphs (20) and (21) of schedule I currently enable the corporation to conduct an inquiry into a registered social landlord. In Committee, I agreed to introduce an amendment requiring the corporation to appoint at least one person who was not one of its own employees. Amendments Nos. 129 to 132 honour that commitment, and make some consequential changes to their powers.
Amendment No. 133 extends the enforcement power when someone resists a request for information, under clause 30, to cover requests by a person conducting an inquiry, to ensure that they can obtain information and documents relating to the inquiry.

Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, the amendments honour commitments given in Committee. In Committee, we moved an amendment to provide that the Housing Corporation
shall appoint one or more persons to conduct the inquiry.
At the time, the Minister found it impossible to accept our wording. I notice that he has moved an amendment worded as follows:
Any such inquiry shall be conducted by one or more persons appointed by the Corporation.
Clearly, his officials and the Clerks have had an immensely complicated time reversing the sequence of that wording to justify the Minister's claim that our wording was typically untidy.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that the music and cadence of the clause also matter. He struck a lumpy note in Committee, and we have tried to turn it into something more melodious.

Mr. Raynsford: I shall not challenge the Minister by testing his knowledge of the skills of inversion in musical composition. We are pleased that the principle in the amendment has now found its way on to the Bill. It will ensure that the person appointed by the Housing Corporation to carry out an inquiry will be independent, and that, if any such inquiry involves more than one person, at least one will be independent. We are pleased that the Government have accepted that important principle, and we welcome the amendment.

Mr. Brooke: In support of my hon. Friend the Minister I remind the House of the occasion when Sir Edward Marsh—Eddie Marsh—said to Winston Churchill, to whom he was private secretary, "We know that Shelley was a great poet because, whereas an ordinary poet would have written 'And roses wild and ivy serpentine', he wrote `And wild roses, and ivy serpentine, "' to which Winston replied, "And I suppose he would have been the greatest poet of all time if he had written, 'And wild roses and serpentine ivy'."

Mr. Curry: There is something worse. The second line of


Hail to thee, blithe Spirit!
Bird thou never wert, 
seems to me to strike the lowest point in English poetry.

Amendment agreed to

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 121, line 13, at end insert—
'( ) Where the inquiry is conducted by more than one appointed person, then, if they do not agree on any matter relating to the conduct of the inquiry, including whether the inquiry should be extended, the view of the majority shall prevail; but they may each make interim reports, and shall each make a final report, and may do so jointly or separately.'.
No. 131, in page 121, line 16, after first 'inquiry' insert
'(or. if more than one person is so appointed, each of those persons) '.
No. 132, in page 121, line 19, leave out 'the appointed person, he' and insert
'any person, the person to whom they are produced'.
No. 133, in page 121, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 and insert—
'( ) Section 30 (enforcement of notice to provide information, &c.) applies in relation to a notice given under this paragraph by an appointed person as it applies in relation to a notice given under section 29 by the Corporation.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 8

CONSENT REQUIRED FOR DISPOSAL OF LAND BY REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD

Amendment made: No. 71, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) Before giving any consent other than a consent in relation to a particular landlord or particular land, the Corporation shall consult such bodies representative of registered social landlords as it thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 9

LETTINGS AND OTHER DISPOSALS NOT REQUIRING CONSENT OF CORPORATION

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 6, line 5, after '8' insertor paragraph 12(1) (h), '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 73, 85 and 86.

Mr. Curry: Amendments Nos. 72, 73, 85 and 86 are technical amendments that correct minor omissions from the original Bill. Amendment No. 72 extends the range of lettings and other disposals not requiring corporation consent as listed in clause 9 by including tenancies granted to tenants of fully mutual co-ops.
Amendment No. 73 to clause 12 deals with disposals of registered social landlords' properties that are made under a consent in clause 8. It re-enacts schedule 2(3) of the Housing Associations Act 1985 and provides that, where a property is sold in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, the association may include a covenant limiting the freedom of a purchaser to dispose of it, typically restricting sale to someone who has lived in the area for at least three years.
Amendment No. 73, which is required to ensure consistency with schedule 3 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, clarifies that the provision applies to voluntary sales made under clause 8. Sales under statutory schemes such as the existing right to buy as well as the new purchase grant scheme are subject to separate statutory arrangements in relation to rural areas.
Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 amend clauses 61 and 62 respectively to add a necessary definition of local authority as used in part I of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 72, 73, 85 and 86 are technical and correct minor omissions, and amendment No. 72 extends the range of lettings and other disposals not requiring corporation consent as listed in clause 9, by including tenancies granted to tenants of fully mutual co-operatives. Amendment No. 73 clarifies that the provisions relating to restrictions on onward sales in clause 12 apply to voluntary disposals under clause 7. Both clauses re-enact existing provisions in the Housing Associations Act 1985. Amendment No. 85 adds the term "local authority" to the list in clause 61 of minor definitions used in part I. Those matters are so important that they bore some repetition.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

RESTRICTION ON DISPOSAL OF HOUSES IN NATIONALS PARKS, &C.

Amendment made: No. 73, in page 8, line 9, after `landlord' insert
', in accordance with a consent given by the Corporation under section 8, '.[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 16

RIGHTS OF TENANT TO ACQUIRE DWELLING: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 11, line 2, at end insert—
'(c) designate dwellings or descriptions of dwellings subject to a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 created in pursuance of the affordable housing policy in a local authority's local plan, to which the right conferred by that section does not arise.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 274.

Division No. 112]
[18.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Alton, David
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Ashton, Joe
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Austin-Walker, John
Burden, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Byers, Stephen


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cann, Jamie


Bell, Stuart
Chidgey, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bermingham, Gerald
Church, Judith


Berry, Roger
Clapham, Michael






Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keen, Alan


Corston, Jean
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cox, Tom
Khabra, Piara S


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dafis, Cynog
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McAvoy, Thomas


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McMaster, Gordon


Donohoe, Brian H
MacShane, Denis


Dowd, Jim
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maddock, Diana


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mahon, Alice


Eastham, Ken
Mandelson, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Galloway, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Gapes, Mike
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gerrard, Neil
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mudie, George


Godsiff, Roger
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Hara, Edward


Gunnell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hain, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hall, Mike
Pearson, Ian


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pickthall, Colin


Harvey, Nick
Pike, Peter L


Henderson, Doug
Pope, Greg


Heppell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hodge, Margaret
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hoey, Kate
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Radice, Giles


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Raynsford, Nick


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hutton, John
Rogers, Allan


Ingram, Adam
Rooney, Terry


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jamieson, David
Rowlands, Ted





Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Sedgemore, Brian
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Turner, Dennis


Simpson, Alan
Tyler, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Joan


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watson, Mike


Snape, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Soley, Clive
Wigley, Dafydd


Spellar, John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wise, Audrey


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Worthington, Tony



Wray, Jimmy


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mrs. Jane Kennedy and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Amess, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Faber, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, Dudley


Bright, Sir Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butterfill, John
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Gallie, Phil


Carttiss, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Garnier, Edward


Churchill, Mr
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gillan, Cheryl


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Congdon, David
Gorst, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speed, Sir Keith


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spink, Dr Robert


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Willetts, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waterson, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Simon Burns and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Giles Brandreth

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 27

GRANTS UNDER SS. 50 TO 55 OF THE HOUSING ACT 1988

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 17, line 3, leave out from 'association' to end of line 4 and insert
'which had such a deficit as is mentioned in that section for any of the years beginning 1st April 1994, 1st April 1995 or 1st April 1996.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 151 and 28.

Mr. Curry: The amendments give effect to the commitments given in Committee. Amendment No. 27 provides for the period for associations to make applications for revenue deficit grant to be extended to cover associations that incurred a deficit in any of the three years prior to commencement.
Amendment No. 28 excludes from the rent surplus fund stock provided with the aid of grant under section 50 of the Housing Act 1988.
Amendment No. 151 allows the corporation to direct a registered social landlord to use any unrecovered housing association grant paid under earlier legislation for a specific purpose instead of directing repayment to the corporation. A similar power covering grant that will be paid under the Bill is contained in clause 26.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendment gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee to enable a claim for revenue deficit grant to be made by an association that had been receiving such a grant in any one of the three years preceding the commencement of the Act. Those are the words that the Minister used when moving the amendment, and those were the words used in our amendment in Committee. We were told that the words were insufficient and inadequate. The Minister has, therefore, chosen clearly to spell out the specific years in the Bill's phraseology. I am only astonished that, for the sake of consistency, he did not use the same terminology when moving the amendment. We welcome this amendment and we support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 151, in page 17, line 4, at end insert—
'( ) In section 52(2) of that Act (recovery, &c. of grants: powers of Corporation), in paragraph (c) after "to pay to it" insert ", or to apply or appropriate for such purposes as it may specify, ".'.
No. 28, in page 17, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) In section 55(1) of that Act (surplus rental income: cases in which section applies), omit paragraph (a).'—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 29

GENERAL POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 17, line 42, after second 'to' insert 'the Corporation or'.

No. 75, in page 18, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—
'( ) Nothing in this section requires the disclosure—
(a) by a solicitor, of a privileged communication made to him in his capacity as solicitor, or
(b) by a registered social landlord's banker, of information as to the affairs of any of his other customers.'.
No. 76, in page 18, line 20, leave out
'a person authorised by the Corporation'
and insert 'any person'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 35

ISSUE OF GUIDANCE BY THE CORPORATION

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 21, line 9, at end insert—
'( ) the services to be provided to tenants;
( ) the procedures to be adopted to deal with complaints by tenants against a landlord;'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 36

POWERS OF ENTRY

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 36, leave out 'seven' and insert 'not less than 28'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 78 to 81.

Mr. Curry: In Committee, I offered to look again at the way in which the corporation might use the powers of entry contained in clauses 36 and 37. I have concluded that the period of notice that landlords should receive before the corporation uses those powers should be extended from seven to not fewer than 28 days. Amendment No. 77 achieves that aim.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 provide the quid pro quo, which is that the landlord, rather than the corporation, should then be responsible for informing tenants that a survey is to take place. That means that the landlord rather than the corporation would communicate with individual tenants, which is a more sensible arrangement.
The penalty clause contained in amendment No. 79 is necessary because a failure by the landlord to give due notice could frustrate the carrying out of the survey. We have built in a penalty clause equivalent to that contained in clause 37, which deals with obstruction of the surveyor by the landlord.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are drafting amendments to the penalty provisions in clause 37.

Mr. Raynsford: We welcome the amendments, which again give effect to undertakings given by the Minister in Committee, arising from amendments that were moved by Labour Members and by Liberal Democrat Members. Under the Bill as originally drafted before it was considered in Committee, it seemed possible that tenants could have been guilty of an offence if they refused to

allow access to someone seeking to enter their premises under the powers contained in this clause. Clearly that would have been an entirely unsatisfactory arrangement. We therefore welcome the clarification that the liability for an offence does not extend to a tenant.
We also moved the extension of the period from seven to 28 days to give proper notice of the use of such powers. That is an equally welcome clarification. We support those sensible and welcome amendments.

Mrs. Maddock: As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, in Committee we discussed the sensitive issue of powers of entry into a person's home. I therefore welcome amendment No. 77. which is in line with amendment No. 137, which I proposed in Committee. I greatly welcome the Minister's comments about giving a duty to a landlord to inform a tenant of entry into that person's home. If I am honest, however, I am slightly disappointed that a tenant will not be given 28 days' notice of that event, but the Minister has honoured his commitment to reconsider the matter. He has come back with some sensible amendments which, with the small proviso that I have expressed, I welcome.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 21, line 36, leave out 'to the occupier, and'.

No. 79, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
'( ) Where such notice is given to the landlord, the landlord shall give the occupier or occupiers of the premises not less than seven days' notice of the proposed survey and examination.
A landlord who fails to do so commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 37

PENALTY FOR OBSTRUCTION OF PERSON EXERCISING POWER OF ENTRY

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 22, line 1, leave out 'a summary' and insert 'an'.

No. 81, in page 22, line 5, after 'on' insert `summary'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Schedule 2

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR: HOUSING COMPLAINTS

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 125, line 48, leave out
', if the complaint is not withdrawn.'
and insert
'not withdrawn, and a power to investigate any complaint duly made but withdrawn, and where he investigates'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Mr. Curry: The amendments are intended to clarify and simplify the arrangements by which the housing ombudsman may investigate complaints and make determinations.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 128, line 3, leave out from first 'complaint' to 'by' in line 4 and insert


'duly made to him and not withdrawn, and may investigate any complaint duly made but withdrawn, and where he investigates a complaint he shall determine it'.
No. 32, in page 128, line 22, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24 and insert
'take such steps as he thinks appropriate to publish what the member ought to have published and recover from the member the costs of doing so.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 53

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS: PART I

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 31, line 5, at end insert 'minor'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 83, 84, 139, 142 and 126A.

Mr. Curry: These technical amendments concern the location in the Bill of consequential amendments and repeals. Most of those will now be contained in an order made under clause 53.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 139 deletes 11 pages of the Bill, from page 131 to page 142. Amendment No. 142, which substitutes for that deletion, is just half a page long. On the surface, that would appear to be a welcome reduction in unnecessary legislation; perhaps the Minister would describe it as deregulation, but it is difficult to be sure that nothing has been lost on the way. I seek some assurance from the Minister that there is no policy effect from such major surgery to his own legislation.

Mr. Curry: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 31, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 8.

No. 84, in page 31, line 9, leave out 'other amendments' and insert 'amendments or repeals'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Schedule 3

SOCIAL RENTED SECTOR:MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 129, line 41, at end insert—

Finance Act 1981 (c.35)

.—(1) Section 107 of the Finance Act 1981 (stamp duty payable upon sale of houses at a discount) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3)(e) insert—
"(ea) a registered social landlord within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1996;".
(3) In subsection (3) (f) for the words from "registered" to the end substitute "registered—
(i) in Scotland, under the Housing Associations Act 1985, or
(ii) in Northern Ireland, under Part II of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992;".

(4) In subsection (3A) (exclusion of certain sub-sales), for "subsection (3) (f) " substitute "subsection (3) (ea) or (f)".
(5) After subsection (3B) insert—
"(3C) A grant under section 19 or 20 of the Housing Act 1996 (purchase grants in respect of disposals at a discount by registered social landlords) shall not be treated as part of the consideration for a conveyance or transfer to which this section applies made by a body falling within subsection (3) (ea) above.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 134 to 138.

Mr. Curry: This is a mixed group of amendments on various issues relating to the housing corporations and the new registered social landlords. Amendment No. 33 extends the provisions of section 107 of the Finance Act 1981 to registered social landlords. I would draw hon. Members' attention in particular to subsection (5), which ensures that tenants buying their home under the new right to acquire will pay stamp duty only on the discounted price, rather than on the full market value. That is in line with the existing right to buy.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 will enable the Audit Commission to provide specialist advice to the Housing Corporation on audit matters. The current provisions in the Bill give the corporations power to sell their loans to the private sector, but they contain possible ambiguities. Amendment No. 136 puts the responsibility for the sale on the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, and provides them with a power to direct the corporations to sell their loans on terms which they approve. Amendment No. 137 provides a similar power for the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to Scottish Homes' loans. That puts the sale of the portfolios on to a secure legal footing.
Amendment No. 138 would repeal the scheme known as home ownership for tenants of charitable housing associations, HOTCHA for short, which has now been superseded by the tenants incentive scheme and the do-it-yourself shared ownership scheme. The purchase grant scheme will also allow tenants to buy their homes at a discount.

Mr. Raynsford: Do the terms of amendment No. 33, which exempts tenants from payment of stamp duty on the full price of properties sold to them under the right to buy, also extend to the voluntary purchase grant? From my reading of the amendment, I assume that it does, but I would welcome some clarification from the Minister.

Mr. Curry: The answer is yes.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the Minister. Amendment No. 134 refers to consultancy services of the Audit Commission offered to the Housing Corporation. I would be most grateful for some suggestion from the Minister as to which services he envisages the Audit Commission offering and in what circumstances. The Minister elegantly explained the purpose of amendment No. 138, and I am surprised that he did not introduce it as the "gotcha HOTCHAs" amendment.

Mrs. Maddock: I should like to comment on amendment No. 136, which gives the Secretary of State another power. On numerous occasions in Committee, I


expressed my view about giving too many powers to individual people. Some of us have a sneaking suspicion that the amendment may be one route by which the Government will try to find some money for their tax cuts before the general election. I do not know whether the Minister would care to comment on when he will demand that the Housing Corporation should sell off its portfolio.

Mr. Curry: If the hon. Member for Greenwich will permit me, I will write to him with details of the sort of matters about which the Audit Commission might wish to give assistance to the Housing Corporation. We are in the business of appointing specialist advisers on the loan portfolios, and, of course, our actions would follow the advice given to us in those circumstances. The timetable is determined by the nature of the advice that we give and the practicality of the proposition.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 134, in page 130, line 46, leave out from beginning to 'above' and insert—

'Functions of Commission in relation to audit of accounts of registered social landlords

28D.—(1) The Commission may provide the Corporation with consultancy services relating to the audit of accounts of registered social landlords.
(2) The Commission may recover from the Corporation such costs incurred in providing the services as may be agreed by the Corporation.

Meaning of "the Corporation" and "registered social landlord"

28E. In sections 28B to 28D'.

No. 135, in page 130, line 53, at end insert—
'(ab) its functions under section 28D relating to such landlords;'.

No. 136, in page 131, line 6, leave out from 'section' to end of line 13 and insert
'76 (general power of Secretary of State to give directions to Corporation) insert—

Direction for sale of Corporation's loans portfolio

76A.—(1) The Secretary of State may direct the Corporation to assign or otherwise transfer to another person, on terms approved by the Secretary of State, all or any of the Corporation's rights and obligations in relation to any loan and any related security.
(2) A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a further direction.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the generality of the Secretary of State's power to give directions under section 76.'.

No. 137, in page 131, line 35, at end insert—

Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (c.43)

In section 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, after subsection (7) insert—
(7A) Without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to give directions under subsection (10) below, the Secretary of State may direct Scottish Homes to assign or otherwise transfer to another person, on terms approved by the Secretary of State, all or any of its rights and obligations in relation to any loan or related security; and it shall be the duty of Scottish Homes to comply with any such direction.

(7B) A direction under subsection (7A) above may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction given by the Secretary of State.".
No. 138, in page 131, line 35, at end insert—

'Housing Act 1988 (c.50)

Section 58 of the Housing Act 1988 (application of Housing Acts to certain transactions) shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 139, in page 131, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 142.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 61

MINOR DEFINITIONS:PART I

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 34, line 7, at end insert—
' "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Housing Associations Act 1985;'.—[Mr. Curry.]

Clause 62

INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS:PART I

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 35, line 10, at end insert—
'local authority Section 61'.—[Mr. Curry.]

New clause 4

DUTY TO PROVIDE GAS SAFETY CERTIFICATES

'1.— After section 353 of the Housing Act 1985 insert—
353A.—(1) It is the duty of the person having control of a house in multiple occupation, and of the person managing it, where the house contains a gas appliance or any installation pipework, chimney or flue, to ensure that a certificate showing safe installation, maintenance and chimney and flue cleaning shall be given to the tenant a reasonable time before he signs the tenancy agreement and every twelve months thereafter during the term of that tenancy.
(2) The aforesaid certificate shall specify the name, address and, where it is gas work, the CORGI registration number of the person who did the relevant work and the date the work was don.".'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would impose a duty on landlords of houses in multiple occupation to ensure that any gas appliances in properties let by them are safely installed and annually maintained. The clause would also apply to other appliances which use any fuels that are liable to produce carbon monoxide. It would also impose a duty on landlords to ensure that pipework, chimneys, flues and so on are maintained safely.
The tragic consequences of unsafe gas heaters were highlighted just last week, when a landlord from Hull was convicted of manslaughter for failing to deal with dangerous appliances which eventually caused the death of his tenant. Some people are concerned that landlords merely pay a fine when they are responsible for the death of their tenants. Officially, nearly 30 people a year in the


United Kingdom die of carbon monoxide poisoning, but most experts agree that the true figure is much higher—perhaps hundreds or even thousands.
Part of the problem is the difficulty of recognising carbon monoxide poisoning for what it is. Even general practitioners find diagnosis difficult, and have sometimes treated victims and then sent them home, where they have subsequently died because the faulty appliance in question continues to give off its poison. That is why we need to highlight the problem and make sure that more people know more about it. Most incidents happen in the home, and not just in houses in multiple occupation, but this legislation gives us an opportunity to look at what happens in HMOs as a result of poorly maintained and installed gas cookers, boilers, heating appliances and associated fittings.
Since 1994, landlords have been obliged by law to have annual safety checks carried out by gas installers registered with the Council of Registered Gas Installers. The evidence shows, however, that tenants are not aware of that requirement; and that many landlords are not fulfilling their responsibilities. Twelve months after the requirement was introduced, Which? magazine surveyed 103 tenants in privately rented properties containing gas appliances, and found that almost two thirds of them said that no servicing or inspection had been done, a third of them having been resident in the properties for more than 12 months. As the magazine observed,
These figures suggest that many private landlords are ignoring—or are unaware of—the new gas-safety check laws, and a significant number of tenants are being put at risk".
A particularly vulnerable group are students, many of whom live in the private rented sector. They tend to move in and out of it fairly often, and perhaps do not have the time to check with their landlords whether their gas fires have been inspected. It is therefore important to put the onus on landlords to provide a certificate, and to renew it every 12 months. That is the purpose of the new clause. Tenants are already legally entitled to ask for evidence of inspection, but we should require landlords to give the evidence to the tenants anyway. Many tenants are understandably reluctant to press landlords for these certificates, which is why the new clause is so important.
I realise that this may prove tricky for the Government, and I know that they are looking into the whole matter to find ways of improving the current legislation. This Bill, however, gives us a golden opportunity to ensure that more people know about the problem, to improve tenants' rights and to make landlords face up to their responsibilities. A great deal of publicity attended the case of Tracy Murphy who died in Hull. Prosecutions are often brought by the Health and Safety Executive, and only fines are imposed—sometimes written off as business expenses. But human lives are at stake and we owe it to those who have lost their lives to ensure that it does not happen again.
I have figures to show how often the problem arises in houses in multiple occupation. Gas was responsible for seven deaths last year; solid fuel, also covered by the new clause, caused four deaths. Butane caused one, and another was attributed to an unknown cause. Of those fatalities, three took place in people's own homes, four probably did, but three were in rented accommodation. Meanwhile, 47 per cent. of near misses were connected with gas, and there were far more such incidents in rented accommodation than in homes lived in by the owners. Now we have a real chance to do something about that.
I realise that the Minister may not be in a position to give us a commitment today. I know that he is consulting on the matter, but I hope that he will at least look at ways of incorporating in housing legislation and legislation covering HMOs a provision that will make it the responsibility of landlords to provide a certificate. He would find support on both sides of the House for such a proposal. I look forward to hearing his comments on what I believe is a useful way of dealing with a problem that has given rise to so many tragic reports in the press in recent weeks.

Mr. David Martin: I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and with her new clause. Those of us with constituencies which include many people living in multi-occupation property—especially students—well know the fears surrounding this issue. Those fears are well known to me, as a parent whose oldest child will in due course go off to university and find herself in such accommodation. Students are particularly vulnerable because their occupation is short term and because of their high turnover rate. That means that they cannot know when the appliance that they are using, or the fuse that serves it, was last inspected and passed as safe.
The hon. Member for Christchurch is therefore right, at a time when the Government are examining the matter, to urge the Minister to say something about the state of play. How are the Government's investigations going? What action do they propose to take to allay some of these fears?
A certificate on its own is not enough. There should be a notice attached or near to an appliance stating when it was last checked and found safe. There should be a sign near a flue stating when it was last swept and rendered safe. After all, the same has been required for fire appliances over the years. Fire appliances can remain in the same place for ages, which is why there must be written notices near them saying when they were last inspected to the satisfaction of the relevant expert. Gas appliances, flues and their fittings should definitely be the subject of a requirement to produce evidence of their continuing safety, to protect those whose short-term occupation of such accommodation puts them at risk.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I concur with the last two contributions, although I am slightly surprised at the need to introduce this idea in this format. Admittedly, the Government are looking into the issue, but it has been with us for quite some time.
I know that British Gas produced a video about carbon monoxide poisoning which was aimed particularly at students. I hope that the Minister will include universities in his investigation as accommodation officers often encourage private landlords to house some of their student population. That applies particularly to students from abroad—at Bradford university, for instance. Many of the houses in which students find themselves contain appliances that have not been properly checked. Before any tenancy agreement is signed, it should be a prerequisite that satisfactory certificates of safety be produced; that is only common sense. Furthermore, that requirement should be included on the face of the Bill.
In my authority, environmental health officers cannot get around all the houses in multiple occupation for checks because there are simply too many. The problem


is addressed only when a tragedy happens, such as that in Hull. That case involved a negligent landlord who was imprisoned, but many people feel aggrieved that he had committed offence after offence. How long will it be before we can put such matters right? The Government push people towards the private rented sector, so they have a responsibility to ensure that people are in a safe environment. British Gas is aware of the position and, as I mentioned, it has made a video.
I hope that the Minister will not take too much time to investigate the problem. New clause 4 sets out an easy and straightforward way to deal with the issue in the short term and I hope that we shall see some quick action. Concern has been expressed not only by student unions, but by other vulnerable groups. For example, single-parent families move into accommodation because of the low cost and the appliances have not been checked. I hope that the Minister has listened to what has been said and will support the spirit of new clause 4.

Mr. Richard Burden: I will not detain the House for long. I wish to thank the Minister because when we discussed fire regulations and other areas covered by new clause 4 I raised the question of the means of escape order and whether the Bill would introduce an inconsistency on means of escape orders. That point is relevant to our debate today. The Minister promised to write to me about that subject and I am grateful that he did so.
I wish to clarify with the Minister what he said in that letter, because it is important that we get it on the record. As I understand it, the Minister has said that there will still be an exclusion in the means of escape orders for houses with fewer than three storeys. I have some reservations about that, but I wish to clarify the position. Beyond that, the good news—if I understand the Minister's comments correctly—is that there will he less disparity between the two schemes in the criteria governing the inclusion of houses than was originally proposed.
The Minister's letter stated:
our proposal at present is to cover all HMOs which might be subject to registration as described in clause 62".
I wish to clarify that he means that there will be no contradiction between regulations relating to means of escape orders and those relating to houses in multiple occupation covered by the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I having a little difficulty relating his comments to new clause 4. They seem more relevant to new clause 9. Perhaps I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Burden: I might have been able to raise the point on both new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised it at this point because new clause 4 deals with the safety of gas fires. The means of escape order specifically relates to fire regulations—

Mrs. Maddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burden: I should like to answer you first, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we discuss new clause 9,

I intend to raise other issues about licensing schemes. The means of escape order is specifically about fire regulations. I do not know whether that clarification will help.

Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman could raise the point on Government amendment No. 56 when we come to it. I tabled an amendment to take out the word "knowingly-. The Government agreed to take my amendment away and rewrite it. They have brought it back exactly the same and I commend their rewriting.

Mr. Burden: The point on which I seek clarification is essentially simple. I think that the Minister has clarified it in writing, but I wish to put it on the record. My point is that if a house is covered by the registration criteria in the Bill, the same property should be covered by means of escape orders; there should be no contradiction between the two schemes. If the Minister can give that clarification I shall be content.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I will deal later, if I may, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) about fire escapes. I wish to deal first with the important contribution by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock).
Gas safety is a very important subject and I have much sympathy with the underlying concern expressed by the hon. Lady about promoting safety. I also understand the concerns expressed by other hon. Members in the course of the debate, which has been good, if short. I understand the concerns about students felt by parents of children going to university. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) made an important point, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as it affects his constituency, Bradford university and Bradford students.
I believe that it will be helpful if I deal in a little detail with the regulations that concern gas safety, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch adverted. Duties on landlords to provide safe gas installations in rented accommodation are properly matters for the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994. Those regulations require landlords, including landlords of houses in multiple occupation, to maintain gas appliances, flues and installation pipework in a safe condition; to arrange annual safety checks of appliances and flues using a CORGI-registered gas installer; and to provide records of those checks when tenants ask for them. The record must include the date of an inspection, the defects identified and any remedial action taken. Those requirements are compulsory for all landlords who rent property that comes within the scope of the regulations.
Managers of HMOs are also required by the management regulations to keep gas supply installations, and those for space and water heating, in good repair and working order. Environmental health officers, who enforce the management regulations, have been told to inform the Health and Safety Executive if they suspect that the gas safety regulations have been breached.
I naturally share the desire of the hon. Member for Christchurch to give tenants the information that they need to avoid potential death traps. The primary aim of


the regulations is to reduce gas-related carbon monoxide poisoning from dangerous gas fittings and blocked flues which, as the hon. Lady said, account for nearly 30 tragic deaths every year.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the recent, tragic case in Hull. I believe that the landlord in question had earlier been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Commission and he was also prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. I understand that he was convicted of manslaughter—a criminal conviction, of course—and received a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The judge gave reasons why the sentence was suspended and said that an immediate term of imprisonment would be the likely outcome in other cases. That illustrates the serious manner in which the courts regard what is a serious offence. I am sure that anyone who has listened to the debate will have heard that serious approach echoed by the hon. Members who have contributed.
Many of the deaths have occurred in rented accommodation, such as HMOs, and I recognise the pressure, reflected in new clause 4, for a change in the law so that landlords are either required to supply evidence of annual safety checks without tenants first asking for it, or are required to display such evidence prominently in rented accommodation.
As I have indicated, the 1994 regulations already require information about checks to be produced to tenants on request, and the Health and Safety Commission has gone to great lengths to publicise how the law protects tenants and to ensure that they are aware of their rights. I understand that the Health and Safety Commission has also been in touch with the Government's chief medical officer, who has issued a circular to all general practitioners about the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. The Health and Safety Commission is very aware of the importance of the subject.
Changes to the rights that I have described are properly matters on which the Commission would first need to advise Ministers. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member for Christchurch that the Commission has a review of the 1994 regulations in hand and that that review will consider the case for a possible new duty on landlords requiring them to display evidence of an annual gas safety check in a prominent position.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What is the time scale for the review?

Mr. Clappison: That was to be my next point. I understand that the HSC will be producing a consultative document by March 1997 and that it intends to produce new regulations possibly by May or June 1997.

Mr. David Martin: Will my hon. Friend speed up that process? Talking about consultative documents makes it sound like next year or the year after that. Perhaps he will give the commission a kick where it hurts.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend, too, has the happy knack of anticipating my next remark. I was about to assure the House that in view of the concern expressed in the debate I intend to contact the commission to draw its attention, first, to the seriousness with which the House regards the subject and the requirement that an

advertisement be introduced and, secondly, to the concern that has been expressed about the time scale. I will draw the commission's attention to the debate. Indeed, I am sure that it would want to be aware of it. I shall ensure that the points made in the debate are reflected upon by the commission.
I hope that on the basis of my assurances the hon. Member for Christchurch will find it possible to consider seeking leave to withdraw the motion.

Mrs. Maddock: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I was slightly more patient than some hon. Members in letting him respond to the debate. I hope that he will push the Health and Safety Commission to quicken its response.
Carbon monoxide poisoning is extremely sinister. We know that carbon monoxide is odourless and colourless, so it cannot be seen. There is a great lack of knowledge. I could go into the reasons why that is so, not least the shortcomings of science education, but I am sure that I would be ruled out of order.
The new clause is simple, but its implementation would solve many problems. I understand that if a review is taking place it is only right that we should wait until we hear what has happened, but I should not have been happy to wait until 1997. Too many people would be lost between now and then.

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Lady accept that if the Government had any concern about these matters they could complete the process by September before students sign on for the next term?

Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and one that I hope the Minister will take on board.
It is important to help those tenants who may not want to push their landlords on these safety measures. The landlord may have told them, "It's all right." I regret that we are moving towards a time when more people will be living in temporary accommodation. They will be moving from time to time. When people do not have direct responsibility and they do not want aggravation with the landlord, they may not be happy to take action. It is important to understand that aspect and to ensure that it is the landlord's duty to provide a certificate.
Nevertheless, having listened carefully to the Minister, I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the new clause?

Mrs. Maddock: If it makes the procedure of the House easier, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The choice rests with the hon. Member.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

NATIONAL LICENSING SCHEME FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order replace the provisions of sections 63 to 67 with a national, mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation.


(2) Any order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We come to the extremely important issue of the licensing of multi-occupied houses. The purpose behind the new clause is to give the Secretary of State power by order to replace the provisions of clauses 63 to 67 with a national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation.
The Bill would replace the provisions of sections 346 to 349 of the Housing Act 1985 for registering houses in multiple occupation. These are schemes of registration that can be set up by local authorities. In summary, the Bill would leave a registration scheme for multi-occupied houses to local authorities' discretion. Secondly, it would shackle authorities' discretion in operating such a scheme. On the basis of the Bill's provisions—I accept that the Government are to move an amendment to remove one of the elements to which I have referred, but we do not know yet what will take its place—well over half of multi-occupied houses would be excluded from the proposed licensing scheme. Our alternative is to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to replace the proposed provisions with a national licensing scheme.
7.45 pm
Let us consider the scale of the problem. We know from research findings that the Government have published that there are about 638,000 multi-occupied houses in Britain. There are different types of such houses, and only about 111,000 are what we would describe as traditional HMOs. By that I mean houses that have been converted into bed-sits. There are about 100,000 shared houses and flats, 41,000 households with lodgers, 17,000 purpose-built multi-occupied houses, about 17,000 hostels, guest houses, boarding houses and bed-and-breakfast hotels, and about 352,000 buildings converted into self-contained flats. That makes a total of 638,000.
It is recognised that multi-occupied houses contain some of the worst housing and life-threatening conditions of any accommodation. The Government's consultation paper—I use no other source because no one, I hope, will dispute what it contains—was issued in November 1994. It made that very point. It stated that
estimates from the English House Condition Survey suggest that the privately rented HMO stock contains a significantly greater proportionate share of dwellings in poor condition than other forms of housing.
It continued:
There is little dispute that HMOs represent a significantly higher fire risk than single family homes.
Let us put some flesh and blood on those relatively cautious official comments. According to the house condition survey, two fifths of houses in multiple occupation—traditional HMOs—are unfit for human habitation. Anyone living in one of those properties has a four in 10 chance of occupying a property that is unfit for human habitation.
Research undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year—it was undertaken by Geoffrey Randall, a very experienced researcher—revealed the risk of death from fire to be 28 times higher in a multi-occupied house than in the housing stock as a whole. That clearly explains the continuing high death toll in multi-occupied houses. The highest proportion of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning—the issue was rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Christchurch in moving new clause 4—is to be found in privately rented multi-occupied houses. There is, therefore, a concentration of severe problems.
Let us consider some of the human consequences. The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to the tragic case of Tracy Murphy, a 19-year-old student who was gassed by a defective appliance in the bed-sit that she was occupying in Hull in November 1993. She had lived in the flat, with her fiancé, for between only four and five weeks. She usually telephoned her family every day. After members of her family had not heard from her for three days, they visited her, only to find her dead. Her fiancé? was away on business. Her blood had a 75 per cent. saturation level of carbon monoxide.
The landlord was subsequently found guilty of breaking the HMO management regulations in not maintaining the gas fire safely. As we all know, he was prosecuted. Tracy's parents, Trevor and Anita Murphy, have had to fight all the way for two and a half years to get the Crown Prosecution Service to proceed with a charge of manslaughter. On 22 April, the charge was confirmed, and the landlord was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered to pay £4,000 towards the Murphys' costs.
After the trial, Tracy's father Trevor said:
Our only child's death will not be in vain if mandatory licensing of landlords is introduced. You need a licence for a TV and an MOT for a car, yet you do not have to have a licence for something that can kill people.
We in the House owe it to the memory of Tracy Murphy, and to her parents who have campaigned so vigorously since her death, to try to get something from her death. We owe it to them to take more effective action, in the form of a national licensing scheme for multi-occupied houses, to stop the hideous, unnecessary and senseless death of young people on the scale that we have seen in recent years.
The problem is not just one of deaths through carbon monoxide poisoning. As I mentioned, the risk of death from fire is far greater in a multi-occupied house than in any other type of housing. Let us consider the case of 20-year-old Matt Cohn. He died in the early hours of Wednesday 28 July 1993 when fire ripped through the semi-detached multi-occupied house in Harrow in which he lived. I stress the fact—this is an important point—that I am talking about a two-storey house in Wealdstone. Matt lived in a converted attic into which he had moved only two weeks earlier. It was his first independent home away from his family.
Access to and from the attic was by means of a wooden ladder. The house had no fire protection and, as the subsequent inquest established, the fire probably started in a rubbish bin near the kitchen on the floor below the attic. There was a fire alarm, but it failed to go off because the batteries had not been replaced. The landlord did not live on the premises; he lived in Cumbria. Despite that,


he had allowed the property to be run without adequate arrangements for its management and maintenance and without proper safety protection for his tenants.
According to one of the ex-tenants,
Matt didn't stand a chance. If there had been a back way out, he might have survived. It could have been all of us. I will never forget that night. Matt was just a young boy, happy-go-lucky with so many friends. He had his whole life in front of him and now it's all gone. The only way up or down was by the main stairs. There was no fire escape. We'd been told by the electricity board the wiring was unsafe.
Claire Jackson, who lived in the attic flat for a year and moved out just a week before Matt moved in, commented:
It makes me go hot and cold just thinking about it. It was just a matter of time, I suppose, but you never think it will actually happen. Everything was done on the cheap and the wiring was so dodgy that even when the electricity meter ran out, my bedroom lights stayed on. It could so easily have been me.
At the time of the fire, the London borough of Harrow was unaware that that semi-detached house in a tree-lined road was a multi-occupied house. That is an issue of which we should be mindful. Under the provisions to which I have referred, two-storey properties would be excluded from any registration scheme. A local authority would not only not have to do anything about such properties, but it would be prevented, because of the nature and size of the house, from taking any action to register such premises. That is the case tinder the Bill.
I accept, as I mentioned earlier, that the Government propose to remove the relevant clauses. I hope to hear in detail what they intend to put in their place. The Minister owes it to us to tell us whether two-storey properties of that nature will be included in the Government's proposed registration scheme.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Arising out the tragic case in Harrow, of which many of us are aware, what would the hon. Gentleman's definition be of an HMO for the purposes of national registration?

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important question. When I began my speech, I outlined the different categories of multi-occupied houses. The definition that seems most appropriate to me is one that includes a number of separate households living under the same roof. The actual number can be defined in different ways. The Government proposed a series of different tests depending, first, on whether the household had lodgers, secondly, on whether the landlord was resident in the premises and, thirdly, on whether the premises were self-contained accommodation. I do not think that we have to go to a precise figure. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why, because I understand exactly why he asked his question.
For properly self-contained accommodation, which may be purpose built, different standards apply from those that apply to the bed-sit property that the hon. Gentleman and I know only too well and which we normally think of when we use the letters HMO. If, in the traditional type of HMO that the hon. Gentleman is describing, there are two or more households, it is an HMO that should be separately registered. If we are dealing with self-contained properties, especially if they are owner-occupied as is quite often the case, one can accept the exclusion of properties with three entirely self-contained flats within the premises. That is why I do not think that we can fix

an arbitrary figure. We have to look at the different categories of dwelling, but ensure that all properties at risk are brought within a licensing scheme. That is the crucial point to which I shall return in a moment.
I should like now to refer to evidence I obtained in Ipswich last week. I was visiting the town and I talked to the local authority there. It was conscious not only of the publicity concerning the Murphy case last week, but of the fact that the matter was due to be considered in the House this week. The authority brought to my attention a further sad fatality in a multi-occupied house in Ipswich.
The authority's letter to me says:
On 24 February the fire brigade and police were called to break into a bedsit in Ipswich, following an emergency call from another tenant. On gaining access they found a nineteen year old man dead on his bed with a gas fire on.
Subsequent investigations by the Police, local Environmental Health Officers, the Health and Safety Executive and CORGI revealed that:—
1. Death was due to carbon monoxide poisoning.
2. The fire was found to be spilling carbon monoxide into the room and the flue was found to be capped off at roof level, therefore all flue gases spilled back into the room.
3. The property had three other gas fires, two of these had similar faults, including flues capped at roof level.
4. The property had a current CORGI gas safety certificate"
That is, perhaps, the most disturbing of all the comments.
The authority continues:
"5. Inspection of the landlord's entire portfolio of twenty five properties revealed serious defects at sixteen addresses.
Emergency disconnections of appliances and/or supply at all of these properties were necessary. Defects found included capped off flues, undersize supply pipework and various faulty appliances. The majority of appliances appeared to be secondhand.
6. Disconcertingly the majority of the properties were covered by current CORGI gas safety certificates.
7. The Council served Statutory Notices in respect of all sixteen properties.
8. The landlord has now complied with the majority of the Notices."
I have mentioned that case to raise the question whether reliance simply on CORGI—the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers—certificates is adequate. It is clear that, in that case, it was not. Proper inspection by the local authority environmental health officers resulting in notices being served has now led to action on that property.
Those tragedies are the background to the case, which is widely accepted on both sides, for the need for more urgent action. The Government published a consultation paper, as I mentioned, in November 1994. I want to be fair to the House and to set out the reasons given in that consultation paper in favour of a national licensing scheme, which we support, and the reasons that the Government spell out for opposing a national licensing scheme, which is their current position. I shall then invite hon. Members to conclude whether the Opposition or the Government are correct.
The Government spelt out the following arguments in favour of a national licensing scheme. First, it would
secure high standards throughout the licensed HMO sector. As with current HMO powers there would be an emphasis on the more consistent enforcement of fire safety standards, both the provision of basic amenities to ensure minimum health and hygiene standards would also be included".


Secondly, it would
prevent the undesirable proliferation of hostels catering primarily for benefit recipients in resort areas".
Thirdly, it would
focus any regulatory regime on those areas and types of housing with the worst problems, and hence make possible the removal of planning controls which apply uniformly nationally".
Fourthly, it would
clarify the regulatory regime so that landlords and tenants know as far as possible which properties need to be licensed and what standards are acceptable".
Finally, it would
ensure a more consistent approach to the HMO sector, which recognises the value of HMOs in meeting a particular housing need and which is reflected in local housing and planning strategies.
Those were the arguments in favour.
8 pm
The Government made three arguments against such a scheme. First, such a scheme
would add little to the powers already available to local authorities. These can be exercised flexibly and tackle those properties which represent the greatest risk. Licensing would reduce this degree of flexibility by requiring local authorities to deal with all HMOs, so making it more difficult to concentrate on those properties most at risk".
Secondly,
as with current registration schemes it would create excessive bureaucracy which would have to be paid for. Only the better landlords would agree to register and the remaining landlords would, as now, refuse to come forward. There would therefore be no significant improvement in the condition of standards of HMO properties as a direct result of licensing".
Thirdly, the Government said that
licensing would be introducing too high a degree of regulation into a market where both landlord and tenant are willing to agree on a reasonable standard of accommodation, particularly in relation to matters not directly affecting fire safety. Raising standards to an unrealistically high level in all cases would mean that either the landlord would withdraw accommodation from the market or the tenants would be unable to afford the higher rents that higher standards could imply.
Let us consider those arguments. First, the Government said that licensing would add little to the powers already available to local authorities. By introducing part II of the Bill, the Government have destroyed that argument. They would not be introducing further powers and they would not include the special control provisions in part II if they believed that the current powers were adequate. There is clearly a need to do more. We are all aware of the appalling examples of lives that have been needlessly sacrificed, and they emphasise that the appalling safety risks require more urgent responses than are currently available.
The second implication of the Government's first objection is that licensing would somehow reduce flexibility by requiring authorities to deal with all HMOs, so making it difficult to concentrate on those properties that are most at risk. That argument does not hold water. We all agree that a risk assessment approach is needed in the introduction of a licensing scheme, as in a registration scheme. The worst properties must be given priority, and there is no difference between the parties on that.

Our only difference is that we believe that a national licensing scheme would oblige all local authorities to do that, whereas the Government's voluntary scheme—some may and some may not register—will result in very little happening.
The Government's second objection was that licensing would create excessive bureaucracy which would have to be paid for, and that only the better landlords would register. There are two separate issues here. The national registration scheme that the Government are introducing increases bureaucracy—there is no question about that. Additional notices will have to be served, and additional inspections and measures will have to be taken to ensure compliance. That is implicit in such a scheme. The question is whether we want an effective scheme to justify the bureaucracy or only a partially effective scheme.
The problem is that the Government are arguing for more powers—they would not otherwise be introducing part II. They accept that their scheme will involve bureaucracy, but it is justified because they recognise—as do we—that there is a huge problem about the safety of the people who live in such accommodation. An overall national licensing scheme is more likely to be effective, because the standards will be known everywhere. Landlords who hold their housing stock in more than one local authority area—some have properties in a number of areas—would know what standards had to be met in every area of the country. If schemes vary from area to area, those landlords will be uncertain as to what standards apply in different areas. It would be far more bureaucratic for them to have to pursue the environmental health departments in each area to find out what is required. From the landlord's point of view, there will be less bureaucracy in a single standard national licensing scheme than in the multiplicity of schemes that the Government are allowing for in their registration arrangements.
The argument that only the better landlords will agree to register is fallacious, because the obligation would be on the local authority to ensure that all premises were registered. That would ensure an approach based on risk assessment, and that authorities dealt first with properties in the worst condition. We envisage a scheme in which there would be more regular visits, inspections and enforcement in respect of properties identified as risks, and relatively long periods between registration and re-registration of properties that are clearly satisfactory.
The study by Geoffrey Randall estimated that it would be possible to introduce a mandatory national licensing scheme along the lines that we advocate at a cost of £30 per room registered. That is a modest cost in relation to the appalling loss of life—perhaps 100 people a year—as a result of fire and gas accidents in properties and the appalling conditions that prevail in so many of them, some four out of 10 of which are unfit for human habitation. That is what we must put in the balance.
That leads me to the third argument against licensing in the Government's consultation paper—that it would introduce too much regulation in a market where both landlord and tenant are willing to agree on a reasonable standard of accommodation. We have no problem with a reasonable standard of accommodation, but we have a serious problem with squalid, sub-standard and dangerous places in which people die because the proper standards are not properly enforced. We cannot justify doing


nothing on the grounds that the current position is reasonable—it is not. The Government know that something must be done, and the argument between us is whether there should be a mandatory national scheme or the partial and—in our view—ineffective registration arrangements that the Government are proposing.
There is extremely wide support for a national mandatory licensing scheme. Some 76 per cent. of those who responded to the consultation paper on licensing in 1994 indicated that they favoured a new national licensing system. The reasons for their support were straightforward. First, the current law is complex and confusing. In its evidence, Birmingham city council listed 17 different Acts of Parliament and regulations that sought to control conditions in the private rented sector. Secondly, the complexity is multiplied by the different policies and enforcement practices employed by different local authorities. Landlords who own properties in different boroughs were confused by the different requirements and regimes in different areas.
There is a great deal to be said for a standard national framework enforced in a comparable way everywhere so that everybody knows the position and whether the standards in their properties are adequate. The absence of a clear national framework makes it difficult for landlords who are thinking about opening new properties. How are they to approach the problem? Will they look at different areas and see in which one they can get away with least control? Will they say, "In this area we do not have to register, so we can get away with poor conditions; we will open a new house here and not go into that area because the local authority is tougher"? All that that will do is encourage poor standards and discourage the vigilant and conscientious authorities from pursuing proper licensing arrangements.
Let us take the parallel of motor cars. We know exactly what the consequences would be if licensing applied in some counties, but not in others. Motorists would decide to register in the county that did not have a licensing scheme, the purpose of the scheme would be defeated and it would become a nonsense.
The other problem with the current scheme is that it is inherently inefficient because it depends on tenants' making a complaint and on the local authority tracking down each substandard property. Hon. Members will recall the case in Harrow, in which the local authority was not aware that the property was an HMO. That is, sadly, a consequence of the present arrangements. Depending solely on tenants' complaints is inevitably an inefficient way of ensuring that all the properties that need to be checked are identified and made subject to the licensing arrangements. Some tenants will inevitably be nervous about making a complaint, especially if they have an insecure letting and the landlord says to them, "If you complain, you can leave. You need not expect to be able to stay here."
All the reasons that I have given make an overwhelming case for a national licensing scheme. Licensing is supported by a wide range of national, local, voluntary and statutory organisations including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of London Government, Shelter, the Campaign for Bedsit Rights—which has a remarkable record for campaigning tirelessly over many years to

tackle the scandal of poor conditions in multi-occupied houses—the Refugee Council, the National Union of Students, the National Association of Probation Officers and the National Consumer Council.
On 5 March, we held a housing policy conference, at which a number of people spoke. I shall quote not a Labour party spokesman, because the House would expect me to do that, but the chairman of Quality Street, a private sector landlord. Paul Mugnaioni said openly that he saw no reason why private landlords should not have to be licensed before renting out homes. He said that it would cause no problems for responsible landlords. Richard Best, the director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, added that the research conducted for the Campaign for Bedsit Rights showed that a national licensing scheme could pay for itself after five years.
There are overwhelming reasons for going for such a scheme to provide an effective and consistent regulatory framework throughout the country. The scheme would cover all the key factors that are necessary for the proper management and maintenance of multi-occupied houses. It would cover the fitness of the dwelling under the fitness standard; it would cover the safety of the dwelling in relation to means of escape in the event of fire; it would cover the safety of the electrical and gas appliances in the premises; and it would cover the arrangements for the management of the property.
Three or four members of the Committee spoke with great knowledge and concern. Hon. Members representing seaside towns, in particular the hon. Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), highlighted the serious problems of poor management, which allowed a concentration of people in properties in very poor conditions which were essentially benefit hostels. All manner of problems were caused to neighbours as a result of poor management. We need to check to ensure that such properties are managed and that the people who run them are competent.
8.15 pm
I have outlined the elements of a scheme. We are not talking about an unduly rigorous or bureaucratic framework. The elements are a check on the condition of the property and measures to ensure the safety of the residents and the competence of the people managing the property. The landlord would then qualify for a licence. The scheme would probably be based on risk assessment to ensure that properties that were licensed but nevertheless problematic were subject to more frequent visits than properties of a good standard where a licence could run for a good period before it needed to be renewed. That is a matter of detail, but it is wrong to suggest that a national licensing scheme would place an onerous obligation on every landlord, including those who let good property, simply for the sake of complying with licensing requirements.
Instead of responding to all the evidence and all the people who were in favour of a national licensing scheme with a national mandatory scheme, the Government have introduced a revised form of registration of HMOs. Their proposals are inadequate for two main reasons. First, it will be up to each local authority to decide whether it will have a scheme. That will leave the uncertainty, the variations in practice between areas and the unfairness in


the current legislative framework. It will be a thoroughly unsatisfactory framework which will be bad news for tenants and for landlords.
The second reason is that, on the basis of what is in the Bill, significantly more than half of the HMOs in the country will be excluded from the registration provisions. The current provisions exclude, first, houses occupied by persons who form only two households, secondly, houses occupied by no more than four persons who form more than two households, thirdly, houses occupied by no more than four persons in addition to the person managing or having control of the property and any other members of his household and, fourthly, houses where the living accommodation consists entirely of self-contained flats.
We moved a series of amendments in Committee. We did not insist that every one of those categories be included. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), self-contained owner-occupied property would not necessarily have to be subject to a licensing scheme. However, a property in which a number of self-contained properties were let almost certainly would, not only because of the conditions but because of fire and gas safety. That is where some distinction needs to be made between the different categories. There is an overwhelming case for ensuring that many of the categories excluded are subject to a licensing scheme and that the restrictive parts of the Bill are amended.
I welcome the Government's decision to withdraw the clause that contains the exclusions and look forward to hearing from the Minister how they intend the scheme should operate and which categories will be covered. Will there be a restriction on properties of two storeys or fewer? If such properties are excluded, horrendous fires such as occurred in the property in Harrow would not necessarily be prevented. What about houses occupied by fewer than four persons apart from the person managing the property? Many HMOs contain only three or four individuals as well as the owner or manager of the property, and in many of them conditions are very poor. Would they be excluded or would there be a risk assessment approach to ensure that all properties likely to be a serious risk would be subject to registration?
The Government undertook to consider the matter, and we look forward to hearing exactly what their conclusions are. Having said that, even if the scope is widened and the restrictions that I have described are no longer in place, the Government have still missed the historic opportunity presented by the Bill to introduce a mandatory national licensing scheme that makes clear our determination as a country to tackle this scandal of poor conditions in multi-occupied houses. I refer to the terrible, needless death of people from fire and from gas poisoning, and to the squalor and utterly disgraceful conditions in which people are forced to live.
Often, landlords are taking large amounts of money from the public purse in the form of housing benefit for those properties. I do not begrudge landlords a fair return, but I do begrudge their profiteering at public expense and not offering decent conditions. We have to ensure that we get value for money. Housing benefit should be paid for a decent standard of accommodation, where people can live with dignity and in safety.
A mandatory national licensing scheme would allow that to happen. New clause 9 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce such a scheme. I put it to the Minister that, even if the Government do not want to do so, they should still put the new clause on the face of the Bill so that another Government, on coming to power, can take action more speedily than would be possible if they had to go down the legislative route. The new clause does not require the present Government to act if they do not want to, but we hope that they will be persuaded that it is necessary. We think that this is a scandal that is crying out for action.
We believe that new clause 9 is a pragmatic and sensible amendment that would allow the inadequate registration scheme that the Government are proposing to be replaced with a proper, mandatory national scheme that applies to every area at a consistent standard to ensure that people who live in HMOs are properly protected and to ensure that landlords are clear about their obligations and the regime with which they have to comply.

Sir Teddy Taylor: We should be grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue. It gives me the opportunity to remind the Government that this is a serious and urgent problem that is causing a great deal of concern, resentment and worry. The only thing that we have to decide tonight—it is very important—is whether the issue is best tackled by allowing each local authority to have its system of rules that may be tougher in one area than in another or whether it would be better to have a national system of registration.
Having listened to the very able and coherent speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), I am worried about the danger that we will give the public the impression that the problem—which currently exists and which will remain—will somehow be resolved by national registration and by more bureaucracy, and that the sins, failures and ails of society will disappear if we have a new management system. I hope that the Opposition will bear it in mind—they may be in government before long—that social problems cannot always be resolved by bureaucracy.
I have been in this place for far too many years—31, in fact—and I can remember when people in my area in Glasgow found it impossible to get a rented house. We had strict rules on the renting of property and the result was that people could not get a house to rent. The Government changed the rules and houses are now more readily available.
We should also think through the nightmares that some of our residential homes for the elderly are going through at the present time. We have rightly introduced new rules and regulations, some of which are costly and some of which are rather irrelevant. Some of the pleasant and acceptable residential homes are now facing closure, so we will have the growth of much larger institutions where the same care and personal relationships may not exist.
I think that the Government's proposal of a voluntary regulation by individual local authorities, bearing in mind the special needs of the area, is probably the better option. On the other hand, it might reassure some of us who are worried about the situation, and particularly worried about some local authorities, that if by chance it turns out that local authorities prove to be irresponsible or neglectful in not applying for registration the Government would not


close their mind and may consider the need to have national registration if local registration does not work—the Conservative Government may choose to do this perhaps five years from now, if they still exist. Perhaps the Minister can address this issue in his reply.
As the Minister may be aware, I have been in consultation with my local authority for a considerable amount of time in relation to the current limited voluntary scheme—so far without success. I do not want to make any political points in this regard because, irrespective of who is in power in Southend, I try to get on well with them. I know that the officials try extremely hard to resolve real problems. The Minister must be aware that there is a danger that some local authorities—controlled by all the parties—may say, "There is no urgency here and we are managing very well so we will not put forward for a scheme".
The Government—who have greater faith in local government than I have—may say that I am incorrect. If by any remote chance I am correct, and if there is a shortage in the number of applications for local management schemes, I hope that the Government will not close their mind to some kind of national registration. I accept that this would not be the best option—clearly, the best option is to have a scheme that allows for as much flexibility as possible, bearing in mind the special needs of the locality.
The second point that I wish to make is that there is a great danger in the Government responding to what they believe to be public opinion. Houses in multiple occupation are the kinds of institutions that every single individual, in every locality, would like to see abolished almost immediately. Wherever one has HMOs, one certainly has damage to the value of property and social problems. In the delightful area of Southend there are glorious large houses that are ideal for the location of HMOs. Local residents complain that when milk is delivered in the morning, it suddenly disappears—and that is only one, small problem. There are many others.
In an avenue near the sea front there are three HMOs together. Local residents rightly complain about the problem of noise pollution. There is also appalling neglect. There was a case where an individual had been dead for a considerable amount of time in a room that was meant to be attended to daily. However, it was some considerable time before the unfortunate chap was discovered. We also have unfortunate landlords. I would like to take the Minister to one particular HMO—the landlord is not present because he is in goal for drug trafficking. It is difficult to chase him at the present time.
The Government, in their local plans, have made provision for unacceptable individuals not to get licences. However, it is not terribly clear what happens if a person gets a licence but then goes to prison for drug trafficking. Would the licence then be removed? I accept that what the Government are proposing is a major step forward. If taken advantage of by local authorities, it could improve the situation. I hope that the Government will seek to get the message across. There is a real danger of inadequacies. Even though I accept that the Government are extremely competent, exciting and effective, they occasionally have inadequacies. One of those inadequacies is in getting the message across.
My fear is that following tonight's debate—after the superb and exciting speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich—the general public may conclude that the

Labour party wants to do something about HMOs and that the Tories rejected its interesting idea. That is not the case at all. I hope that the Government will get across the message to local authorities and to local communities that what they are proposing in the legislation is something rather important that could give substantial powers to local authorities.
The third thing that I want to say—I hope that it will not make me too unpopular where I live—is that we should have some regard to the individuals who live in HMOs. I have a weekly surgery, my phone number is in the phone book and I speak to a lot of people. Therefore, I am well aware of the situation facing people who live in HMOs. Quite frankly, the conditions that people endure in HMOs—whether they are adequate or inadequate—are pretty dreadful.
Although the Government very kindly arrange for the housing benefit to be available, the nasty landlords usually shove an extra £5 on the charge on top of what is allowed by the housing benefit authorities simply to get what they regard as reasonable. It means that what is regarded as the minimum living standard under the income support rules is usually that less £5 and it is not a very pleasant situation.
I hope that the Government will accept the need for standards to be maintained. The only additional concession that I will make is to ask for extra action to be taken if, by chance, local authorities prove inadequate in applying for, and enforcing, licences. In Mr. Barker we have an excellent director of environmental health—the department has subsequently changed its name to the department of consumer services and goodness knows what else; the name seems to change nearly every day—and I am sure that, given the extra power, he would use it very satisfactorily.
8.30 pm
I want to mention two problems to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am not saying that there are easy solutions, but I hope that something can be done. I think that the majority of the public in Southend-on-Sea are sickened by those two problems. First, it is abundantly clear that individuals with problems are being dumped on Southend, simply because some authorities do not have HMOs, do not want them and do not want them to be encouraged. Southend contains many large properties that would be suitable for conversion to HMOs. It is a real problem; authorities are passing their social problems to us.
I have heard that Labour authorities, and even a Conservative authority not far from here, thought that they could solve their problems by dumping them elsewhere. I am sure that the Government disapprove of such action, whether it is taken by a Labour or a Conservative authority. I hope that they will realise that the problem has a serious impact on areas such as Westcliff-on-Sea, and the Milton ward in particular. Do they believe that local authorities—all of which must deal with individuals with special needs—will have an obligation to provide accommodation for those people? Unfortunately, two boroughs in particular that have no HMOs, or an inadequate number, cannot provide accommodation there. It can only be provided in Southend, and that is unfair to us.
The second point that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind is this. Some areas, whether or not there is dumping, are attractive to people looking for


HMO accommodation, because they contain many large houses that are suitable for conversion. Southend suffers from that a great deal, as do other seaside resorts. I hope that, in the allocation of funds, the Government will remember that some areas have special problems. Southend is certainly one of them.
If we talk too much about special problems, we are in danger of giving the impression that the place concerned should be avoided. I have lived in Southend for many years, and it is a delightful borough, but we have specific problems in certain areas, and something needs to be done.
Irrespective of what we do tonight, I hope that the House will not give the impression that there is an easy solution. It appears to me that there are more people looking for such accommodation now than there have ever been in the past, for all sorts of reasons. Some may stern from unemployment, some from family break-up and some from the consequences of such break-up; others relate to the personal problems of individuals. Moreover, many of the authorities involved have not applied even for the basic rights that they could have under the existing licensing scheme. I hope that the Government will take firm action, on an urgent basis, to convey to authorities that new, strong powers exist to help proper management of their affairs, and also that they have an obligation to act.
Why on earth do not local authorities apply? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think about that carefully. Is it because they do not want the bother of applying, or because they think that the powers are a waste of time? I have the impression that some authorities regard the existing powers as inadequate; the powers in the Bill are much stronger and more precise. Could the Government perhaps send the simple message that, under the new powers, individuals who break the rules can have their licences removed and, consequently, their properties closed, and may end up with a serious court conviction?
I also have the impression that many people living in certain local authority areas who have suffered from the consequences of HMOs feel that no one is doing anything. I believe that, if it is made clear that those who do not apply for the appropriate licences can have the licences that they have been given revoked, and that those who have not applied may be subjected to fines and imprisonment, the Government's proposals will make a substantial difference. I certainly hope so. We must ensure that local authorities realise that tough new powers are available if, and only if, they apply for them.
I hope that the Government will give some thought to the "dumping" problem, and the undue attraction of individuals to such accommodation. I hope that they will see a case for doing something very simple. I have mentioned Southend, and the Milton ward in Westcliff. Is it unreasonable to ask the Government to consider asking an individual—or part of the Minister's Department—to consider what action might be appropriate in the area, in terms of the Bill? Nowadays, there is a terrible danger that the Government will produce an enormous number of reports, employing huge numbers of consultants, holding huge numbers of seminars and spending huge amounts of money, while no attention is being given to real problems. I have mentioned the problem in Southend and Westcliff's Milton ward. The council would be very

pleased if the Government thought it appropriate to consider how the problem has arisen and what further steps could be taken, perhaps in consultation with the council and all those involved with it.
As most hon. Members probably know, Southend is in an interesting political position. The majority of our councillors happen to be Liberal Democrats. I am involved with Southend, West—which I do not represent—where there are a good many Liberals, no doubt for good reasons. However, we have a Conservative party, and also a Labour party. I believe that we will probably still have three parties after Thursday's elections; but, irrespective of who is in charge, it is desperately important for everyone to work together to try to solve the problems.
In Southend—unlike Glasgow, where everyone seemed to regard political discussion as almost a recurrence of the civil war—I have the impression that, by and large, the parties work together if there is a real problem that they feel can be resolved. Does the Minister think that it might be appropriate for his representatives to discuss Southend's problem with representatives of all its parties? Could they say, "Here is a real problem; this is what the new legislation can do", and ask whether there is a way in which they can work together to improve the lifestyle of those living in HMOs and try to resolve the general difficulties?
The Minister should be aware that there are appalling cases of neglect, some of which I have mentioned. Individuals have been exploited, and property has been found to be in an appalling state. I had the pleasure of visiting one property with local authority officials, and what I saw appalled me. In fairness, it was years ago, but I saw no fewer than 14 people sleeping in one room—and it was not really a room; it was at the top of some stairs, in a sort of hallway. The local official involved was so appalled that he somehow managed to get the place closed. Of course, all the people there went somewhere else. I do not know where they went, but it is quite possible that they went to another place with serious problems. Such problems have to be faced. The Government are giving local authorities the opportunity of solving them with the exciting new powers in the Bill. I hope that authorities will respond to that by taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the Government, but I also hope that the Government will say that if, by any remote chance, it does not work as successfully as it should, they will not close their mind to a national registration scheme. It would be a second best, but it may be the only alternative.

Mr. Betts: The issue is not simply one of technicalities, models or schemes but of the rights of individuals who live in houses in multiple occupation to be protected from landlords who need to be controlled by the sort of scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) proposed. The need for control is clear from the weight of evidence of our observations in our areas and from what he said about the tragedies that have shown the failures of the current system.
Instead of giving tenants rights to ensure that they get protection from a control system in each local authority, the Government have given local authorities the right to apply for a registration scheme if they wish. That is our fundamental disagreement with the Government. In giving local authorities that right, there is an assumption


that they may not take it up. Tenants in some parts of the country may lose the right to have their homes properly regulated and to be properly protected from the excesses of landlords who may not behave in a fit and proper manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich spelled out the danger of fires to residents of such properties. People are 28 times more likely to die in them than in ordinary rented property. Such properties are twice as likely to be unfit. We examined that evidence in great depth in Committee. The Government had no substantive argument against the fact that they are more dangerous to their occupants than other private rented properties.
Most Opposition Members would instinctively want to argue for freedom for local authorities to take decisions that reflect the needs of their areas. In many respects, it is right that local authorities should be free to choose priorities related to the requirements of their areas. In this case, however, we are talking about what are issues of health and safety at the very least and which have on several tragic occasions been issues of life and death, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. In those circumstances, there should not be a right for local authorities to decide whether to introduce the aspects of the Bill that could enable them to prevent lives from being so wastefully expended, so tragically lost. Local authorities should have a duty placed on them to ensure that they take all appropriate action under the legislation available to give protection to people in such circumstances.
The people who live in HMOs are often there not through their choice but because of their desperate needs. They are often families that have been made homeless from other properties and are in HMOs because that was all that was available. They are often the poorest and most vulnerable people. Often they are students or young people who do not always think of the problems and difficulties that can result from inadequate fire safety provision or gas fires and gas equipment that has not been properly serviced. Such considerations are not the first things that come into young people's minds when they set off full of hope and expectation to university. After two or three weeks of desperate struggle looking around, they find somewhere to put down their heads at night. They deserve and must have full protection from the Government.
Young and transient people have other things on their minds. At their age, they are rightly thinking of their studies, their futures and of social activities at university. People in such properties have often come from being homeless. They may be vulnerable people of other sorts such as people struggling desperately to bring up families on low incomes. They do not easily make a strong pressure group to push local authorities into applying for registration schemes as one of their top priorities. Local authorities are under pressure in a variety of different ways and from different people and groups in their communities. However, the residents of HMOs are not likely to form the strongest pressure groups. There should be a national mandatory scheme because of the sort of people who live in such properties, the nature of the properties, the record of many of the landlords and because, in the end, there may not be any pressure from such individuals as a group to ensure that their voice is loudly heard.
8.45 pm
Opposition Members would champion the case for local authority freedom on many issues. In Committee, we had some moments of humour. The issue that caused the greatest collective hilarity among Opposition members was the Minister's conclusion that we could not have a national mandatory licensing scheme because we had to give local authorities the freedom and choice to act on behalf of their residents as they thought fit. From a Government who have imposed so many extra duties on local councils in the past few years, taken so many responsibilities and powers away in other respects, and controlled their expenditure absolutely, that came a bit rich. That argument cannot be meaningfully sustained.
The lie to the suggestion that the Minister was a champion of local authority freedom and local democracy was given by the wording of his model registration schemes. Local authorities have the freedom to act only in so far as they can apply to have such a scheme. They can have any scheme they want, as long as it is the Minister's scheme. They can have a different scheme as long as they get approval from the Minister for it. That is nothing to do with local authority freedom. The Government are apparently not willing to stand up to certain pressure groups that are forcing them away from imposing a duty on all local authorities to have a proper licensing scheme for HMOs.
There is no real argument for local authority freedom in this respect. Local authorities are not making one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, when the Government consulted, the local authorities associations unanimously said that they wanted a mandatory national licensing scheme. The only organisations that appeared not to want such an arrangement were the landlords and the fire officers. The latter had a peculiar view about who should be responsible for the enforcement of the schemes and wanted more authority for themselves rather than directly for local authorities. Apart from that, the Government chose to side with the landlords.
Perhaps the Minister could tell us about the results of the consultation. The Government started by considering both a national mandatory scheme and one that local authorities could choose whether to adopt. What single factor in the consultation responses decided the Government in favour of an optional scheme? Which single organisation or group of organisations gave such powerful evidence to the Minister that the Government were persuaded of that point of view? Why did the Government, who said that they were neutral and had an open mind when they set out on the consultation process, come down for an optional scheme rather than a mandatory one? Was it the pressure of landlord power? Apparently, no other group seriously argued for the course of action that the Government have decided upon.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) seemed to be arguing that the Government were right to have a scheme that local authorities could choose to adopt if they so wished but that the Government—and I agree with him on this—should do everything that they can to bring the availability of the scheme with its enhancements to the attention of local authorities and to encourage them to take it up because it was a good idea that it should be extended across the country. But he then seemed to say that if local authorities relax and do not take up the offer and the Government's suggestions, the Government


should consider a national licensing scheme. If the result that the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve is that the registration licensing scheme that is available for local authorities to take up if they so choose should be taken up by all local authorities and applied on a national basis, why not begin from that position and place that duty on local authorities? We shall then achieve much more quickly the end that the hon. Gentleman apparently desires.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The basic reason why I prefer the voluntary scheme is that authorities have different problems and the schemes will not all be the same; they will vary according to the applications put forward by the different councils. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the legislation makes it clear that it would not merely be a matter of applying for a licence and getting a stamp on it. The licence for Southend-on-Sea would be simpler than those for other areas. I would prefer that, but I agree that if councils do not apply, we should consider a national scheme, which would be uniform.

Mr. Betts: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have slightly misunderstood the possibilities that will be available to the Secretary of State under a national mandatory licensing scheme. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that different HMOs pose different problems in different parts of the country. In response to an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich explained the different aspects of HMOs and how they might be treated differently under any system.
While a national licensing scheme would place an obligation on every local authority to license HMOs in their areas, it could contain slight differences of approach—as the Government suggest may be available to local authorities under their model arrangements. But, under a national licensing scheme, every local authority would have to have a scheme and apply it. Under the Government's proposals, a scheme is taken up only if a local authority so chooses—that is an important difference. There could be variations in individual schemes and variations in the way in which different HMOs are treated, even under a national licensing scheme. The essential difference is that every local authority would be required to have a scheme. The universal application of a scheme would be that much quicker if the Secretary of State were given powers to introduce one—as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich suggests.
I wish to raise one further issue that I hope my hon. Friend and, in particular, the Minister, will address. I raised the issue in Committee, and it remains important. When I moved an amendment in Committee I accepted that its wording was not necessarily correct—and I accept that it is difficult to draft the correct form of words.
We have discussed in the debate the difficult and sometimes complicated issue of defining multiple occupation. There is another difficult issue—which may seem simple at first sight, but can prove to be more complicated—and that is the definition of household. There has been a difficult case in the courts involving Sheffield council. The issues involved in the Barnes case, which we talked about in Committee, still need to be addressed as part of any national scheme.
In the Barnes case, the landlord was able to avoid being affected by the local authority exercising its powers through a local control scheme by claiming that the students who occupied the property were living as one household. Without going into the details of the scheme, when students occupy houses, even if they are individuals leading individual lives and not sharing many of the household duties in the home, they may well turn up on the doorstep of the property as a group. They may have been sent there by the local students union or whatever body organises accommodation for new students arriving at university. If four, five or six people arrive at the property, they may collectively be required to find a replacement if one of them leaves.
In the Sheffield case, such issues meant that the court found that it was dealing with one household, which could not be controlled by the local authority scheme dealing with houses in multiple occupation. That is worrying and puts many students at risk. Other local authorities are already encountering problems as a result of the system and I hope that we can resolve the problem of definition—if not under the Government's current proposals, certainly under the national mandatory licensing scheme that the next Government will surely introduce.
The problem has been recognised; the need for a scheme has been recognised in the sense that the Government accept that they will draw up model schemes for local authorities to follow—that is hardly an issue between us. Our argument involves the need to replicate that scheme so that all local authorities run such a scheme in their area. We do not disagree on the nature of the scheme, but on the extent of its application. Even a national scheme could reflect slight differences in different areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, the problem is not even—as the Government have tried to claim—that a national mandatory scheme would be more difficult to enforce or more bureaucratic. If it is a good idea to have control schemes for houses in multiple occupation, it is a universally good idea and should be universally applicable. If it is recognised that it is necessary to deal with the problems of houses in multiple occupation and the activities of some landlords, that need should be recognised everywhere. If it is recognised that it is necessary to protect tenants and to uphold their rights, it is necessary to protect tenants throughout the country. If it is necessary for some houses in multiple occupation to be registered, why not register all houses through a national mandatory licensing scheme?
One cannot argue against the logic of such a scheme; we did not hear a convincing argument from the Government in Committee and I am not sure that the Minister will do much better tonight. I hope that he might keep an open mind on the subject—that is probably too much to expect. The Government should recognise that this is a serious matter and tenants are at risk everywhere. That is why the protection provided by a licensing scheme should be available to tenants everywhere.

Mr. Chris Davies: The Government deserve credit for recognising the importance of the issue, and for ensuring that provision is made in the Bill for raising its profile and trying to tackle some of the worst problems. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who clearly showed that concerns are felt on both sides


of the Chamber. That said, the plans for a voluntary registration scheme strike me as convoluted, confused and a cop-out. At worst, they seem designed to limit the effectiveness of real attempts to tackle the problem. I suspect that, if the proposals had been suggested by the Labour party, the Government would be pouring scorn on the details.
Houses in multiple occupation come in different shapes and sizes. They have different uses, ranging from bed-and-breakfast accommodation to hostels and flats with shared facilities. A common factor is that they often tend to be older properties—perhaps Edwardian, Victorian or even Georgian—and are usually substantial. The average Wimpey or Barratt box that one finds on modern housing estates is unlikely to be the perfect accommodation for a landlord who is seeking to make money by filling every room with tenants.
9 pm
As a councillor, I recall visiting a property in Canning street in Toxteth, Liverpool, some 12 or 14 years ago. It was perhaps typical of the impression that is created by the acronym "HMO". It was a grand four-storey Georgian property, with a magnificent classical frontage. However, as one reached it, one realised that the building's structure had decayed. At the side of the door was a block of nine bells, of which some worked and some did not—a few were simply wires hanging out of the wooden frame. One would eventually find a bell that worked, and someone would come and open the door.
One would then enter the gloomy interior of what was once a magnificent and prestigious house, which probably belonged to a merchant. However, the lighting now came from a single bulb hanging from an extended cable, and the plaster was rotting on the walls. The electrical wiring clearly needed to be redone, as one could see stretches of cable protruding from the plasterwork. The carpet on the once magnificent staircase was threadbare, and people could easily trip if they were to walk down the stairs in the dark.
One eventually reached the top landing, where a separate toilet had been provided behind a 6-ft high containment of hardboard, which reached nowhere near the top of the 12-ft. ceiling. That was unfortunate, as one of the tenants had a disorder which meant that odours emanated from the landing throughout the day, which were unpleasant for all residents and visitors.
The once magnificent rooms had been converted by dividing walls into relatively small bedsits. They had very high ceilings and minimal heating, and were very cold in winter. The washing and kitchen facilities were scarcely adequate, being of the most primitive kind; and I have already described the toilet. To be fair, that property was hardly a seething mass of human beings—it was semi-derelict.
It was occupied by only a handful of people: a teacher, a student, a council employee and several unemployed people. If the property had been exploited to capacity—if it had been in a fit condition to do that—it could have accommodated five or six times as many people in conditions which might be regarded as unacceptable, but which would have allowed each person a fair amount of space.
It is all very well for single people to live in such circumstances, so long as they choose to do so—as was probably the case with the five tenants in that property.

However, it would be unacceptable for a property such as that to be occupied by those such as the elderly, who had no alternative but to live in such premises. It would be particularly unacceptable for families with children to occupy such a property.
To be fair to the landlord, the cost of renovating such a property and making it fit for habitation was completely unrealistic. That property—a listed building—has now been restored, at public expense, at a cost of more than a third of a million pounds. There is no way in which a private landlord would ever spend that amount on a property, as he could never achieve that sort of return.
Despite the difficulties that all local authorities face in trying to raise the standard of houses in multiple occupation owned by private landlords—for the very real reason that the money is not available to carry out a substantial programme of improvement—it is essential that Parliament lays down minimum standards. During the debate today—and many times in Committee—we heard about the risks associated with HMOs compared with smaller, privately rented accommodation that is let to perhaps one family. The risk of a serious fire is 28 times greater in HMOs. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats support the amendment calling for mandatory licensing.
It seems odd that the Government are posing as the friend of local authority freedom. After all, most Opposition Members condemn them as the most centralising Government in British history. It is strange that they now advocate that local authorities should have the freedom of choice in these matters. Those of us of a cynical nature would suggest that Government give freedom to local authorities only when it suits them.
I wonder why the Government advocated the proposals in the Bill. It cannot be because a national scheme would be difficult to enforce, yet that was one of the preposterous arguments that were put in Committee. We can imagine a director of housing facing the publicity of a fire such as the one in Harrow that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), and being exposed to the full scrutiny of the press and his own councillors, and then finding that there was a mandatory scheme but that the local authority and the officers under his direct control had not enforced it properly. At best he could kiss his career prospects goodbye.
The idea that a mandatory scheme would not be enforced properly is ludicrous. It is more likely that it would help the Government to ensure that local authorities received no further support from the Department of the Environment to carry out the obligations that such an amendment would place upon them. Perhaps it would be convenient for the Chancellor to say that local authorities had the freedom to choose whether to take on the additional responsibility; and, if they chose to do so, they would have to decide whether or not to pay the money. Such measures involve costs, and I fear that the new clause represents one way to avoid any burden falling upon the Exchequer.
I wonder whether—I suspect that it is most likely—there are those within the Conservative party—perhaps on its right wing, or perhaps they are now regarded as part of mainstream Conservative thinking—who believe that imposing further regulations on landlords is somehow unacceptable. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that


all landlords were cast in the same mould, but some were more mouldy than others. It was a difficult time for him, as, in a blaze of publicity, he had just dealt with a particularly notorious Rachman landlord.
If we are to solve our housing problems and provide choice and flexibility for those seeking accommodation. it is important to encourage the private sector, but we should not forget that encouragement to private landlords and the freedom for them to earn money in that way involves responsibilities. The Opposition do not avoid that.
In practice, the Bill is concerned more with the appearance than the reality of dealing with HMOs. The hon. Member for Southend, East was concerned that the Government would not reap the full benefits of the initiative that they were attempting to take, and that they would not gain advantage from their proposals. I fear that his words were prophetic. Although the Government are making a gesture towards dealing with the problem, they will not gain the blessing of the housing associations involved, because of the way in which they are promoting the registration scheme, which I fear will not do the job.
In Rochdale, some 180 HMOs are known to the local authority, but the officers there say that there exist probably half as many again that are not known to the local authority. In neighbouring Oldham, the local authority is aware of about 140 IIMOs. It is likely that there are another 140 that are not known to the local authority. The scheme proposed by Minister places the onus upon the local authority through the need to publicise the arrangements and ensure proper enforcement, yet many of the landlords who avoid their legal obligations by not making their presence known to the local authority will continue to slip through the net.
Although the proposals contain methods of enforcement, and place obligations on the landlord, and although it may be argued in law that ignorance is no defence, in practice, if a local authority takes to court an HMO landlord who has not previously made himself known, I fear that the court will deal with him leniently if he pleads ignorance. The landlord will receive a rap over the knuckles, and only then will the enforcement procedure commence. It is in the interests of landlords who do not care about their responsibilities or about tenants to find ways of circumventing the Government's schemes, even if local authorities decide to implement them.
A mandatory licensing scheme introduced nationwide would place the obligation firmly on the landlord to declare his properties and their condition; it would make available tough penalties to enforce the Bill's provisions, and would bring into line landlords who might not otherwise comply. Such a scheme would still allow local authorities freedom and flexibility to determine their assessment criteria above the minimum to meet the regulatory standards.
I imagine that local authorities would draw up their own five-star schemes. The basic requirement for one star would be to pass the minimum test laid down by statute to gain registration. A two-star property would still not be considered ideal, but would be deemed suitable for single persons having the freedom to make that choice. It would take five stars for a local authority to say that a property

was acceptable as long-term bed-sit accommodation for a family with children. The local authority would have flexibility to determine the arrangements most appropriate for its own circumstances.
Such a scheme acknowledges reality, but the House must deal with the rogues who seek to circumvent regulations, and with slum landlords.
New clause 9 is supported by local government associations, because it would create a national framework and require landlords to face their responsibilities and take action. It would also give local authorities a firm base on which to build. I cannot say that I am particularly sympathetic to the exact wording of the new clause, which seems to give the Secretary of State the right to say yea or nay—something that we have criticised over the years, because that power is not to be given lightly.
I hope that it is not suggested that the blue centralisation of decision taking of the past 17 years will shortly be replaced by red centralisation, but I will give the hon. Member for Greenwich the benefit of the doubt, despite his argument that the Minister should accept the new clause so that a Labour Government could immediately implement the procedures. I like that argument, but I do not think that it will persuade the Minister to change his approach. I assume that the hon. Member for Greenwich tabled his new clause as a way of presenting something different from the proposals debated in Committee. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats will be supporting new clause 9.

Mr. Burden: Some powerful speeches have been made in support of new clause 9. Some extremely ambiguous messages have come from the Government about a national licensing scheme and registration. To give credit where it is due, the Government have indicated to some extent a willingness to do something. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said, the Government have made certain proposals, although I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about their potential effectiveness. I acknowledge that Ministers feel the need to do something—hence the proposal for a registration scheme.
I find it odd that Ministers have undermined their proposals' effectiveness by making the scheme voluntary, which seems to be contradictory. That ambiguity has been present throughout the Bill's passage, and it even predates the Bill's publication. We had quite a long discussion in Committee about some of the consultation documents that preceded the Bill's publication. An odd contradiction and ambiguity was pointed out then, because a lengthy and very good consultation paper was published by the Department of the Environment in November 1994, entitled "Consultation Paper on the Case for Licensing". A rather thinner, two-page document was published by the Welsh Office.
9.15 pm
The DOE paper was very balanced and very clear, and, on its first page, stated that there was a problem that needed to be dealt with. The fact that there was a problem was widely recognised. Paragraph 3—under "secondly", which is odd—of the consultation paper stated:


there is widespread concern that in many HMOs, physical and management standards are often poor and fire safety precautions inadequate. Although most local authorities are addressing these problems, the proponents of licensing claim that their current powers are too weak or progress in raising standards is too slow.
It is absolutely fair to say that that paragraph does not come out and say, "Therefore, there shall be a licensing scheme." It recognises that there is a problem, and that a large body of opinion recognises that something substantial must be done.
The two-sided letter that came out in Wales also had a third paragraph. It stated:
There has been some criticism about HMOs which appear to be at a higher risk from fire and in a poorer state of repair. However, providing these homes are in good condition and are safe and well managed, they can successfully meet particular housing needs.
The tone of those two documents was very different, and some of us wonder whether the fact that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was at the Welsh Office at that time had anything to do with it.
Despite the contradiction in the tone of the two documents, both—I shall deal with the DOE document in particular, because it seems to be rather more substantial—made as a substantial argument against a national licensing scheme, in addition to many arguments in favour of one, the fact that it would require primary legislation. That seems odd, because, a short while later, we are now discussing primary legislation on housing. Ministers had every opportunity to insert such a scheme in primary legislation, but have chosen not to do so.
Ministers may have their own reasons for not doing so, which I shall explore in a moment. I should tell the Minister that, if the Government are worried about introducing primary legislation on a national licensing scheme, this new clause will obviate the need for it. It provides a reserve power. Labour Members cannot understand how Ministers believe that their voluntary scheme will be effective. We cannot understand how there can be consistency in standards for accommodation for all tenants across the country, and yet make the scheme voluntary.
I accept that Ministers believe that that can be done. Why are they then removing the option of bringing in a national licensing scheme if the voluntary scheme is unsuccessful? Let us remember what they said before—that the big problem with a national licensing scheme is that it would require primary legislation, that a long process would have to be gone through to introduce it, and that it might be better to take a different route. They do not have to do that now.
The Government should use primary legislation to insert those reserve powers—then, fine, if the voluntary scheme works and all the local authorities opt for an effective scheme, no one is going to say, "Let's have a national scheme just for the sake of it." If those schemes do not work, Ministers should have the power to do something about it.
The consultation papers triggered a response. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has already said, local authority associations were unanimous in their belief that a national licensing scheme was the right option. Apart from those associations, the clear majority of respondents were in favour of a mandatory licensing scheme. The DOE chose, however, to opt for a voluntary registration scheme.
What was odd, however, was that the DOE press notice, which was published on 22 November 1995 and which explained the Government's response, said that the majority of respondents to the 1995 consultation paper welcomed the proposals in principle
with a variety of opinion on detail.
Sixty per cent. of the respondents called for the Government to consider mandatory licensing for HMOs.
The Government seemed to say in their press release that the majority of respondents supported a voluntary registration scheme, when the respondents to their consultation document patently said the opposite: the majority supported a national licensing scheme.
Hon. Members have already said that fire risk in HMOs is a serious problem. According to the 1991 English house condition survey, 40 per cent. of HMOs are unfit for human habitation; 80 per cent. of them lack an adequate means of escape from fire, and 98 per cent. of local authorities rate the lack of fire safety as the most prevalent problem. Hon. Members have already said that the risk of fire in HMOs is 28 times greater than that in self-contained housing, as is the appalling problem of carbon monoxide poisoning, which we discussed when we considered new clause 4.
In my area of Birmingham, there are about 5,000 HMOs. We know that some of those are in good condition, and that some are run by responsible landlords who would have no problem with a national licensing scheme. There are far too many other HMOs that are in a dangerous condition and a poor state of repair. In my part of the country, as in others, far too many are accidents waiting to happen. In my constituency, 80 per cent. of the young people who are helped by the south Birmingham young homeless project end up in hostel accommodation, which suffer from the precise problems that I have described. Those youngsters have ended up potentially vulnerable as a result.
On Second Reading and in Committee, and even before the Bill was published, hon. Members on both sides of the House did a lot of good work to alert people to the problem. The hon. Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) spoke eloquently in Committee about the need to do something about the appalling conditions in HMOs.
I must ask those hon. Members and the Government whether we are solely concerned about HMOs and the risks they pose to safety. Surely not. The Labour party accepts that standards and the extent of the problem may vary around the country, but is anyone seriously suggesting that standards of accommodation and safety should vary between one part of the country and another? No one has suggested, either in Committee or tonight, that standards should differ. Unless that was argued, surely there is every reason to provide at least reserve powers for a national licensing scheme.
In Committee, we were pressed about the need to respect the freedom of local authorities in this matter—no doubt we will hear the same argument tonight. As my hon. Friends have already said, we take that with a rather large bucketful of salt, given the Government's actions on local authority freedoms. Let them remember that their scheme does not provide local authorities with freedom. The only freedom it gives them is the freedom to have a scheme or not to have one. As soon as authorities decide


to have a scheme, their freedoms disappear because at that point the contents of the scheme become subject to central control.
Let us explore the freedom not to have a registration scheme at all. It means the freedom to allow an accident to happen in a local authority's area without doing anything about it. No local authority that I know would welcome such a freedom.
Let us think, too, about the people who are arguably more important than local authorities or Members of this House—the tenants. They are the ones who will end up suffering the consequences—the fatalities described by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich—of inadequate conditions in houses in multiple occupation. The Government are giving local authorities the right to opt into registration schemes. Where is the right of the tenants to opt into such schemes? They will not be consulted when it comes to bringing a registration scheme into operation.
Labour Members have made it clear that we want a national licensing system, and we see no reason for delay: we want the proposal included in this Bill. Ministers say that they do not think that that is the right approach; they want a voluntary system. We do not think that adequate. But even if Ministers feel as they do, why are they disallowing the suggestion of beefing up this legislation, which would involve no extra parliamentary manoeuvres at all and which could be put into effect if these regulations, as we believe they will, prove inadequate? There is no reason to refuse the reserve power for which we are calling.
I ask Ministers even at this late stage to consider the tenants—the ones who matter—who will suffer without such a scheme, and to agree to the new clause.

Mr. Stephen Timms: It has been clear in this debate that there is widespread support for a national mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs. There is, for instance, support from organisations such as the Campaign for Bedsit Rights and Shelter, and from organisations representing tenants and would-be tenants. I suppose that no one will find that surprising.
There is also support from the regulatory sector, from the local government associations. The Association of London Government has written to me about this, and I know that other local authority associations take the same view. There is also support from specialists in local government. The head of environmental health in the borough of Newham has drawn my attention to the view of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, expressed when it learned that the Government were not proposing to go ahead with mandatory licensing—contrary to what appeared likely at one stage. The institute said:
The Chartered Institute has supported the concept of licensing for HMOs since at least 1985; it considers that licensing would have a number of unique benefits … we still believe that a national, uniform, mandatory licensing scheme is necessary, that its benefits cannot all be achieved otherwise, and we are disappointed, not least given the overwhelming weight of opinion behind our views, that the Government does not accept these arguments.
The Government should take note of that well-expressed professional view.
There would be important benefits as well for the landlord sector, the other major player. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) quoted the

chairman of Quality Street, who said that he saw no objection to a licensing scheme. One reason for advancing such a scheme is to make life more straightforward for landlords. Current law is extremely complex and confusing; that problem is exacerbated by the differing policies and enforcement practices employed by local authorities, and sometimes by officers and departments within authorities. Both those can make it extremely difficult for landlords to know what standards are regarded as acceptable. They often experience the law and the way that it is implemented as arbitrary and there is a disincentive for them to enter or remain in the market. The uncertainty also makes it difficult for landlords to plan expenditure on properties. A scheme of the kind we suggest would therefore have significant benefits for landlords as well.
9.30 pm
The large contingent of Blackpool hoteliers who attended the sitting of the Committee when we discussed this issue made a great impression on me. Those hoteliers felt very strongly that the Government needed to take a much stronger line on HMOs and they were concerned about the effect of badly run HMOs on their businesses. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), who is not in his place this evening, said—rightly, in my view—that
the problem is not just the effect of houses in multiple occupation on those who live in them but, in many cases—particularly in seaside resorts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and I well know—the effect that badly run HMOs have on businesses and local residents in the surrounding area".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 20 February 1996; c. 231.]
The hoteliers were present for the whole sitting of the Committee that discussed the issue and they were anxious that the Committee took a firm line. They wanted a national mandatory licensing scheme and they were very disappointed that the Committee did not support that. I emphasise the point that there is wide support for the proposal from tenants and local authorities, and from landlords. I hope that the Minister will take that into account when he responds to the debate.
I hope that the Minister will focus his attention on the following questions. Why is it right that HMOs in some parts of the country should not be registered? What are the characteristics—for example, housing or environmental characteristics—that prevail in some parts of the country which lead the Government to conclude that registration and licensing would not be appropriate in those areas? The Government may be able to advance reasons why registration would not be appropriate in some parts of the country, but we have not heard them yet. I have no idea what they might be; if the Government are not able to give us those reasons, new clause 9 should be accepted. I await the Minister's answer with interest, because that point is at the heart of the debate.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who participated in the debate on this subject in Committee, went so far as to suggest that the councils that did not introduce licensing schemes would fall into the category of rogue councils. If it is the Government's view that the only people who would not introduce licensing schemes would be rogues and lunatics, surely it should be a mandatory national scheme.
Why the Government have not come forward with a national mandatory licensing scheme is something of a mystery to all of us. It appeared from the initial consultation paper that that was in the Government's mind. We know that responses to the consultation paper were overwhelmingly in favour of a national mandatory scheme. It appears to many of us—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) suggested a few moments ago—that the views of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the previous Secretary of State for Wales, may have had something to do with the change of heart, as may the lurch to the right that was occurring in the Conservative party at that time. That dispute in the Conservative party may be the reason why the Government have not come forward with proposals, but we need to know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich mentioned a couple of tragic cases in which people have died as a result of conditions in HMOs. Tracy Murphy, who lived in Hull, was one of those people. The other was Matt Cohn, who died in a fire in a two-storey house in Christchurch gardens in Wealdstone. I wish to mention a couple of other cases. Angela Stickland was two weeks short of her 21st birthday when she died in a bed-sit fire in Chesham in Buckinghamshire in November 1989. The South Buckinghamshire coroner recorded a verdict of accidental death in that case, but said that such houses are quite clearly an added fire risk. That happened in the area covered by Chiltern district council. Another case involved Michael Tighe, who died aged 30 in hospital as a result of burns sustained in an horrific bed-sit fire on Outercircle green, Lincoln.
The locations are Hull, Chiltern district, Harrow Wealdstone and Lincoln. There is nothing obvious that these areas have in common. There are no areas where controls are not needed. Controls are needed everywhere. There should be a national scheme. I hope that the Minister will accept that argument, or set out the circumstances in which he believes that registration would not be helpful.
Only a reserve power is proposed. That appeared to be what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was arguing for. He said that, if the arrangements set out in the Bill are unsuccessful, a national mandatory scheme should be introduced. That is exactly what implementation of the new clause would provide.
It is widely recognised that the present arrangements are inappropriate. The Government have set out the case for licensing and registration. The question before the House is, what importance do we attach to local authorities taking up the powers that the Bill would make available to them? Are we talking about something that it would merely be nice to have, or is it essential, as Opposition Members argued in Committee and again in the Chamber this evening, that the proposed powers are used so that tragedies can be brought to an end?

Mr. Sutcliffe: This has been a detailed debate. My hon. Friends have put the issues well and truly before the House, as they did in Committee. They have based their evidence on the thousands of people who contributed to the consultation document.
It would be unfortunate if all the evidence was pushed to one side because of political dogma that causes the Government to say, "We shall not regulate any more."

It would be especially unfortunate because safety regulations are so important in this instance. It seems that the Government want vulnerable people to take the route of private rented accommodation. Vulnerable people include the single homeless, single parents with young children and families generally. They find themselves on short-term tenancies. Society must ensure that they are protected. In effect, the Government direct such people into private rented accommodation because they do not allow local authorities to build houses.
The Government are taking the gamble that is represented by houses in multiple occupation. They are gambling with other people's lives. A mandatory national licensing scheme would cut the risks that face the vulnerable. It ill becomes the Government to say, "Let's leave it to local authorities. They will sort it all out." The Government have done everything they can to remove powers and resources from local authorities.
The indictment against the Government is that they are not prepared, given all the evidence produced by my hon. Friends and the problems that are to be found in the private rented sector, with the high number of 638,000 dwellings used for multiple occupation that are in a state of disrepair, to be consistent by introducing a national registration scheme. Such a scheme would enable people in HMOs to feel safe and secure while paying an affordable rent.
Local authorities could assist if they had sufficient resources. Local authorities throughout the country tell us that they cannot respond adequately to the massive number of regulations that face them, given their lack of resources. Yet the Government continue to move people into HMOs. They are prepared to exempt certain buildings. We have heard this evening of many terrible tragedies. In many areas, HMOs are death traps.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider even at this late stage. The debate has taken some time, and people have looked at the matter in terms of the evidence from professionals who work in the sector and have tried to ensure that they convince the Government that a national mandatory scheme is the only way forward. The voluntary scheme that the Government propose is not acceptable because it may not operate in the areas where it needs to operate. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter.
People will lay the fault at the Minister's door if there are further tragedies. They will blame the Minister's failure to be consistent in this matter, especially when the Government have pointed people in the direction of multi-occupied housing as a means of providing social housing. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will reconsider.

Mr. Clappison: This is an important subject. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) was right on at least one point when he said that we had had a detailed debate. I am not sure that I go along with the rest of his contribution. It has been a detailed debate, and I listened carefully to the contribution by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I hope that I shall not offend the hon. Gentleman too much if I say that I also listened carefully to his speech in Committee and I now feel that I am something of a veteran in terms of the points he raises.
Notwithstanding some of the expressions that the hon. Gentleman used, there is a large measure of agreement on several points connected with houses in multiple


occupation. I do not dissent from what he said about this being a big issue affecting many properties and, therefore, many tenants. I do not disagree with him when he says that, in some circumstances, standards are unsatisfactory and need to be addressed. I particularly do not disagree with him when he implies that there is a need for appropriate powers to deal adequately with those problems.
The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that there were two differences between the Government and the Opposition; I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the differences have narrowed to two. First, there is the question whether there should be a national licensing scheme, which is the subject of the new clause, and, secondly, there is the question of which types of houses in multiple occupation should be excluded from the scheme.
In one of the less immediately transparent and direct passages in the hon. Gentleman's speech, he dwelt at some length on that point, but then added that, of course, the Government were prepared to listen on that point and had tabled amendments. I shall come to what the Government propose when I turn to those amendments. The hon. Gentleman can see that the Government have thought about the matter carefully and have taken the exclusions from the Bill. We do have proposals, which I shall outline when we come to the relevant amendments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, when deciding which types of property should be included in the scheme, we have to judge the degree of risk. I think that that was implicit in what he said.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on a national licensing scheme. What he said throughout his speech was undermined by the fact that he put his case rather too high. He certainly put it too high when he suggested that the Government's proposals were ineffective because they did not include national licensing. He confused licensing and powers, and he underestimated the significant and important powers that the Bill will put in place which will allow local authorities to tackle the problem of houses in multiple occupation—powers that will, most importantly, differ in different circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the differences that will occur between local authorities that adopt powers under the control provisions and local authorities that adopt the special control provisions that they feel are needed to deal with their local circumstances.
It will assist the House if I take it briefly through the effects of some of the powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was absolutely right when he said, in an excellent speech, that the powers were stronger, clearer and more precise, and would make a substantial difference; he said that they were an important step forward. Those powers will be of benefit to residents in the Milton ward in Southend-on-Sea, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and in Westcliff-on-Sea, as they will assist other local authorities in similar circumstances, possibly in coastal resorts. Local authorities throughout the country will have the opportunity to adopt the powers which, in many cases, are tailored to meet their needs. They certainly reflect concerns that local authorities and residents have expressed.
It is important for the House to concentrate on the control provisions and their effectiveness for the local authorities that choose to adopt them. When the control provisions have been adopted by local authorities as part of a registration scheme, the authorities will have the opportunity to refuse to register HMOs when they fall below standard in a number of important respects—for example, when a house is unsuitable and incapable of being made suitable for occupation; where the person having control of the house or the person intended to be the person managing the house is not a fit and proper person; and where the house needs work to be brought up to scratch. Those important provisions place power in the hands of local authorities.
9.45 pm
I hope that all those who are aware of the tragic cases referred to in the debate will reflect on those powers, which are significant and address the problems of HMOs. The powers go further for local authorities that feel that they have a particular need because of the effect of HMOs on their area as a result of the way in which those houses are managed. Such authorities can go further and adopt the special control provisions, which provide a further tightening of the powers concerned. These important powers will enable local authorities—including those in coastal resorts—to bring to an end the state of affairs that is causing problems to residents.
We heard in Committee from my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), and today the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) referred to the close interest being shown by Blackpool hoteliers in this issue. The hon. Gentleman may not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North has been in contact with me both today and in the past about the matter. I believe that he is in the Chamber now, and that he has brought a delegation of hoteliers from Blackpool to talk about the problems. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friend has certainly been here during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is here, has taken a great interest in the matter, and he is well aware of the problems in his constituency.
The Government have listened to all the representations, and the argument comes down to this: the special control provisions that are in place in the legislation will give authorities in coastal resorts the opportunity and the discretion to deal with the sort of problems that they are telling us about. Authorities can refuse to register the properties in question, or can issue an occupancy direction that will curtail the state of affairs about which the authority or the residents have complained.
The hon. Member for Greenwich said that there was a lack of standardisation in this area, and asked about landlords moving from an area that has control provisions or special control provisions to another.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated assent.

Mr. Clappison: I see that the hon. Member for Greenwich is nodding his head. That was one of the slightly less practical points in his speech, and I would respectfully draw his attention to the other measures in


the legislation. Clause 73 establishes a national code of practice that can be used in evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings.
We are building on the provisions that are already in place which create important duties that those responsible for HMOs must fulfil. Clause 71 takes further the duty of people having control of HMOs to prevent certain states of affairs that have a bad affect from coming into being, and makes it an offence for someone to be in breach of that duty, which can be actionable in damages.
In my respectful submission to the House, there is in place in the legislation a tough and appropriate package of powers that will give local authorities the opportunity to deal with the problems in HMOs about which the House has heard. Those problems vary in their nature and incidence throughout the country. There must be flexibility. Flexibility is built into the legislation in terms of the strength of the powers that local authorities can take. It is important that local authorities reflect on that. If they feel that they have a problem in respect of HMOs, the powers are there for them to adopt.
I do not see local authorities permitting a state of affairs in which landlords move from one area to another to create problems with HMOs. The opportunity is there for all local authorities to deal with those problems by adopting the powers, which the hon. Member for Greenwich—who is fair in many respects—will accept are tough and effective. We have not heard any criticism of the effectiveness of the powers. It would be a mistake to undermine the effectiveness of the legislation by confusing licensing with powers and to overlook the fact that the powers that we have provided create opportunities for local authorities to opt, if they choose to do so, in an important way into dealing with the problems that HMOs can cause.
We have introduced a wholly effective and tough set of proposals which provide the opportunity for local authorities to deal with what both Conservative and Opposition Members agree can be serious problems.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had an extremely good debate this evening. We have heard a number of valuable, thoughtful speeches. The debate has shown a clear majority in favour of a mandatory national licensing scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), and for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) all spoke in favour of a mandatory national licensing scheme. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), in a thoughtful and forceful speech, made what I might describe as an each-way bet on the option.
According to my tally, that gives us from the Back Benches five and a half in favour to a half against a national mandatory licensing scheme. If the Front Benches are added in, that gives us six and a half in favour to one and a half against—a slightly larger majority than the majority of 75 per cent. of those who responded to the Government's consultation paper in November 1994 who said rightly that at that date there was a need for a national licensing scheme. As many of my hon. Friends have said, that was all the local authority associations. They all want it.
The voice of dissent here is the voice of the Minister. He seemed disappointed to hear the same arguments as he had heard in Committee. That is the result of arguing

these things out. If the Government had accepted our case in Committee, he would not have had to listen to me again today. It is his fault for not accepting the argument. That is the nature of democracy.
I accepted in Committee that there was an awareness and acceptance on the Government Benches that there was a problem of poor conditions, squalor, exploitation, bad landlords and, above all, life-threatening conditions such as dangerous gas appliances and lack of fire safety precautions which killed an unacceptable number of people every year in rotten houses in multiple occupation. All those things argue the case for more effective measures. The Minister said today that the Government were introducing more effective powers. He referred specifically to three items, to which I should like to respond briefly.
The Minister referred to the control powers and placing powers in the hands of the local authorities. I acknowledge that he rightly said that we had not argued against the powers. What we have argued against is the fact that the powers will not be mandatory—that there will not be a requirement on local authorities to operate them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, in an entirely accurate and perceptive comment, it brings little or no satisfaction to a tenant living in unacceptable conditions who wants action if the local authority, for whatever reason—be it indifference, lack of care or scarce resources and considering that there are other priorities—says that it will not do anything about the situation and that it is not prepared to introduce the control powers.
While we welcome the powers, we believe that they should apply everywhere, because the problems exist everywhere. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East rightly said, the fire tragedies have occurred in places as far a field as Lincoln, Harrow and other parts of the country. We are not talking about problems that are concentrated in certain areas or in seaside towns; we are talking about national problems—and there must be a national response.
The Minister referred to the special control provisions that apply in coastal resorts. The case for such provisions has been made overwhelmingly by coastal resorts. The exact same argument applies: we welcome the special control provisions, although we shall query one or two details when we come to later amendments, but we want them to apply everywhere: we do not want them to be selected by, say, Blackpool but not by other resorts where the same problems may apply.

Mr. David Nicholson: I understand that local authorities asked for—pressed for—these powers. Would it not, therefore, be perverse of them not to use the powers when they have been given the opportunity to do so because they have not been compelled to do so?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman may be correct, but local authorities already have powers to register HMOs under existing legislation and only about 100 out of the 300 or so local authorities have registration schemes in place. The existing powers are not adequate—we want to see them strengthened—and they are not used extensively. On that precedent, I fear that the creation of the new powers will not change the position and that some authorities will take a more serious view of their responsibilities than others.
Although we may chide authorities—we may talk about the failure of authorities and about irresponsible authorities—the tragedy will be for the individuals who live in squalid conditions in places where the authorities have not introduced the scheme and who have no effective remedy or redress. We take the view that there is a need for a national framework.
The third issue that the Minister prayed in aid was the fact that clause 73 allows him or the Secretary of State the power to issue codes of practice. Codes of practice are all very well, but they are only codes of practice—they can be ignored. It does not in any way counter our argument that we need an effective national mandatory licensing scheme. Such a scheme is necessary.
Without a national mandatory licensing scheme, the dreadful toll of deaths will continue year after year, and we shall hear the names that we have etched in our memories—such as Clanricarde gardens in London, Palmeira avenue in Hove, the hotel in Scarborough and the recent fire in Harrow. We will hear case after case, name after name, of people who die through carbon monoxide poisoning—such as Tracy Murphy. We will hear again and again of squalid conditions, of people crammed into unsanitary conditions, as the hon. Member for Southend, East described so movingly in his speech—15 or so people were crammed into squalid and unacceptable conditions, which is shocking.
If the Minister and the environmental health officer visit such HMOs, perhaps they will take action and close them. If they do not visit such HMOs, they will not know that they are a fire risk because there is no national framework. Those tragedies will continue, as in the case of Harrow. We owe it to the hundreds of people who are killed as a result of fires and faulty gas appliances in HMOs to take more effective action. We owe it to them to take action on a national scale, not only on a local scale. We owe it to them to introduce a national mandatory licensing scheme.
In conclusion, the one thing that the Minister did not say in his response was what will replace the provisions that the Government have now wisely chosen to remove from the Bill. As I highlighted in my speech, the Government are removing the restrictive provisions in clause 63(2) which will prevent local authorities from registering certain properties. What they are not saying is which properties will be included.
Until we have a clear indication that there will be a comprehensive national licensing scheme covering all HMOs where such risks arise, we shall say that the Government's response is inadequate, and we shall continue to press for a national scheme. I urge hon. Members who feel as strongly as we do—whatever their persuasion—to join us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 278.

Division No. 113]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Austin-Walker, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Armstrong, Hilary
Barron, Kevin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Battle, John





Bayley, Hugh
Grocott, Bruce


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gunnell, John


Bell, Stuart
Hain, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hall, Mike


Bennett, Andrew F
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Henderson, Doug


Berry, Roger
Hendron, Dr Joe


Betts, Clive
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Blunkett, David
Hinchliffe, David


Boateng, Paul
Hodge, Margaret


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Burden, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Byers, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Church, Judith
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clapham, Michael
Jamieson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clelland, David
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Connarty, Michael
Keen, Alan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Corbett, Robin
Khabra, Piara S


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corston, Jean
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cox, Tom
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken


Dafis, Cynog
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Llwyd, Elfyn


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davidson, Ian
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Denham, John
McMaster, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
MacShane, Denis


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Maddock, Diana


Donohoe, Brian H
Mahon, Alice


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Etherington, Bill
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gapes, Mike
Mudie, George


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Godsiff, Roger
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Graham, Thomas
O'Hara, Edward


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pearson, Ian






Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pope, Greg
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Reid, Dr John
Trickett, Jon


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Walley, Joan


Rooney, Terry
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watson, Mike


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew


Ruddock, Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Audrey


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mrs. Jane Kennedy and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cran, James


Bates, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Batiste, Spencer
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Sir Graham
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fabricant, Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Carrington, Matthew
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carttiss, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley





Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gillan, Cheryl
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorst, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, Rt Hon William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speed, Sir Keith


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Lord, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan






Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tredinnick, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trend, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Dr. Liam Fox and


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth]

Question agreed to.

Clause 63

MAKING AND APPROVAL OF REGISTRATION SCHEMES

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 35, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 36.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 52.

Mr. Clappison: The amendment has been somewhat foreshadowed. In Committee there was concern that exclusions to the houses in multiple occupation registration schemes in clause 63 were too extensive and would leave many houses in multiple occupation which were in a poor condition outside the scope of registration schemes. We have proposed that smaller HMOs and houses that have been converted entirely into self-contained flats should be exempt from registration as they are likely to be at a lower risk from fire than larger properties or to offer better facilities.
In the light of the concerns of which we heard in Committee, we decided that there was a case for looking again at the way the exclusions are framed. We have therefore decided to remove all the exemptions from the primary legislation. A similar set of exclusions will be included instead in the model registration scheme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will prepare, subject to some changes which I shall mention in a moment. The model registration scheme will also exclude from registration other categories of property—for example, houses covered by specific regulatory regimes. We wish to exclude also those properties managed by institutions, which might include universities and

properties managed by the national health service and housing associations—some of which were mentioned in Committee.
Removing those exclusions from the face of the Bill will allow local authorities more flexibility. In some areas, there may be justifiable reasons why they would wish to register a particular category of property that is normally exempt from the model registration scheme. It will also facilitate future changes to the excluded categories when the results of our proposed research into fire risks in houses in multiple occupation are available in a year or two.
In the model scheme, we are also minded to make some changes to the list of excluded categories currently set out in clause 63. We envisage that we will exclude houses where, apart from the household of the owner or the manager, there are no more than three other persons rather than four as we proposed originally. We are trying also to frame an exclusion to cover houses that have been converted entirely into self-contained flats, many of which are owner occupied.
As we discussed in Committee, the problem of framing an exclusion based on the tenure of the occupants has proved problematical. However, we are considering excluding houses where there is a significant percentage of owner-occupied flats—for example, where at least one third of the flats are let on long leases. We shall, of course, consult interested parties about the content of the model scheme, and consultees will be invited to comment on the proposed exclusions at that time.
The amendment demonstrates that we have listened carefully to, and endeavoured to meet, the concerns that have been put to us. I hope that all the amendments will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Raynsford: The Minister knows that we welcome the decision to withdraw the very restrictive provisions in clause 63(2). However, we are concerned about what will be put in its place.
The Minister has begun to flesh out his proposals in that regard. We are concerned that he has talked about exclusions similar to the existing provisions in clause 63. We are particularly concerned that he did not refer to the size of buildings. Do the Government intend to exclude buildings of two storeys or less? If so, the kind of property that I described in Harrow, where the dreadful fire occurred, would not be covered.
We welcome the decision to reduce the number of people from four to three in the category of houses that are occupied by no more than a specified number of people. We welcome the decision to distinguish owner-occupied, self-contained properties from tenanted properties where there are more likely to be problems—although we recognise the potential difficulties involved with a definition.
This is a complex issue that will require careful attention if we are to get the detail right. It will clearly be difficult for the Minister to do that in the Bill's later stages in the other place. I hope, therefore, that all interested parties—particularly the local authorities and the voluntary organisations, including the Campaign for Bedsit Rights, which has done much stalwart work in that area—will have an opportunity to look at the proposals in detail before the Government proceed. I hope also that the Government will listen to the responses to that consultation.
We need arrangements that will work and will ensure that people at risk in such properties have proper protection. While welcoming the Government's decision to remove the highly restrictive provisions in clause 63(2), we remain concerned that the Government's replacement provisions could be still too restrictive and would, unfortunately, leave some people at risk. I hope that the Minister will pay close heed to what is said by all concerned and will be flexible in his approach to the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 64

REGISTRATION SCHEMES: CONTROL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 38, line 21, at end insert—
'(d) to impose such conditions relating to the management of the house during the period of registration as the authority may determine.'.
No. 46, in page 38, line 26, leave out second 'or'.
No. 47, in page 38, line 28, at end insert 'or
 ( ) impose conditions relating to the management of the house.'.
No. 48, in page 38, line 35, after 'application:, insert—
'( ) notify an applicant that they intend to impose conditions relating to the management of the house'.
No. 49, in page 39, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) Where the decision of the authority was to impose conditions relating to the management of the house, the court may direct the authority to grant the application without imposing the conditions or to impose the conditions as varied in such manner as the court may direct.'.
No. 50, in page 39, line 23, at end insert—
'(2A) Control provisions may enable the local housing authority to revoke a registration if they consider that there has been a breach of conditions relating to the management of the house.'.

No. 51, in page 39, line 28, after '(1) % insert 'or (2A) '.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 65

REGISTRATION SCHEMES: SPECIAL CONTROL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 41, line 28, leave out
'(in accordance with section 346(2) ) '.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Amendment proposed: No. 53, in page 42, line 1, leave out 'the Rent Acts or'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 54 to 57.

Mr. Raynsford: We welcome the amendment in part as it deals with an issue that we highlighted in Committee

whereby under the original provisions tenants risked losing their tenancies. The Government have accepted our logic to the point of deleting the phrase "the Rent Acts" so that tenants who enjoy regulated tenancies will no longer be subjected to that risk. A tenant with an assured tenancy, however, could lose his or her tenancy, so we are surprised that the amendment does not cover those tenants.
I hope that the Government will reflect on that. Our intention was simply to ensure that landlords could not override tenants' normal security on a technicality because of the poor condition of the property. I hope that the Government will think again and ensure that that is not a consequence of their action.

Mr. Clappison: As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment reflects concerns that were expressed in Committee. It goes so far as assisting those with security of tenure when local authorities invoke occupancy directions or take other measures. We are always prepared to reflect upon those circumstances, but I cannot promise to meet the further concerns that the hon. Gentleman has outlined today.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66

OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH REGISTRATION SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 43, line 32, leave out '3' and insert '4'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 67

STEPS REQUIRED TO INFORM PUBLIC ABOUT SCHEME

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 44, line 30, at end insert—
'(2) In section 350(1) of the Housing Act 1985 (power to require information for purposes of scheme) for the words "a person" substitute "the person having control of the house or the person managing the house or any person".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 71

DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES FIT FOR NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 46, line 26, leave out Inowingly'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 74

INCREASE OF FINES

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 48, line 22, leave out '4' and insert '5'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Consideration adjourned—[Mr. Brandreth.]

To be further considered tomorrow.

Habitual Residence Test

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Stephen Timms: In October 1993, the Secretary of State for Social Security stood before the Conservative party conference and described a new scourge which he said was sweeping the continent. In the abusive terms that our European partners have come to expect from the British Government, he employed a range of "'Allo, 'Allo" accents to conjure up a vivid picture of benefit tourists—back packers and the like from around Europe who come to Britain, pretend to look for work and claim benefit.
If one can ignore the crudity of that speech, which may have been required to please the Conservative party conference, it is easy to feel some sympathy for the Secretary of State, who had identified a problem that required a solution. Benefit tourism certainly was not the largest fraud in the social security system—indeed, it had never satisfactorily been quantified—but it was an undesirable phenomenon.
Having identified the problem, the Secretary of State announced his solution—the habitual residence test. It was introduced in August 1994 and it soon became obvious that, whatever its original intention, the test was reaching well beyond the scope of benefit tourism. In its first 15 months of operation, only 36 per cent. of those who failed the test were from other European countries; 22 per cent. were from Britain and 42 per cent. were from elsewhere. The figures for February this year—the latest available in the Library although I am grateful to the Minister who today provided me with the figures for March—show that the proportion of non-Europeans failing the test remained at just 36 per cent. while the number of British failures has risen dramatically to the same figure.
The position is clear. The habitual residence test does not merely deal with the Secretary of State's benefit tourists from elsewhere in Europe; it casts a much wider net and it withdraws the means of subsistence from many people from whom the Government did not and should not intend to withdraw subsistence. By withdrawing support from UK citizens, the Government are failing the test. The Minister will be aware of an important study by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published in February, "Failing the Test", which draws on evidence from more than 200 bureaux throughout the country. The report's conclusions are succinct, reasonable and fiercely critical of the Government. It stated:
After eighteen months of its operation, the CAB Service has concluded that the test should be withdrawn. It has proved expensive, unfair and unworkable and has no part in a sensible and humane welfare system.
That is a ringing and unequivocal verdict by an unimpeachable source. The report backs that conclusion with great detail, and shows that
in seeking to deal with one relatively small problem, the Government has created many more.
The report points out that the test has
created a class of people who, whilst able to live freely and work in the UK, are denied access to its welfare system.
The report adds that many people from ethnic minorities

who lived and worked in this country for years have been excluded from help because they have travelled abroad for a period to stay with relatives.
The report states that
it has proved impossible to produce a workable definition of habitual residence
that can be consistently applied. Appeals against failing the test by CAB clients are won in the majority of cases, adding to the evidence that the test is being inconsistently and unfairly applied. The test is costing much more than was anticipated to administer. However one looks at the test, it is doing great damage that greatly outweighs the cash savings to which it has led. I will return to NACAB's detailed recommendations, but real, human problems are at the centre of habitual residency cases.
One welfare adviser in my constituency remarked recently that public attention has shifted from the hardship caused by the test in recent months. She does not think that things have got any better or that the hardship has become accepted, but that newer injustices equally forcing people into penury—she was thinking in particular of the removal of benefits for asylum seekers—have stolen the spotlight. One way to stem criticism of an unfair measure is to introduce another, but the Government must not be allowed to ignore the large number of real and unintended hardship cases caused by the test.
The Newham docklands advice bureau, which covers part of my constituency, was visited recently by a young woman who went temporarily to Ghana, where her mother lives. When she returned, she was forced to undergo the habitual residence test and failed. That woman is disabled and unable to find work, and now she cannot claim benefits. What is she supposed to do? She was born in Britain and is a British citizen, but that is how her country is treating her. Sometimes the hardship is temporary, but it is no less unjustified for that. A Newham pensioner went to visit relatives in Bangladesh for six weeks, and on his return was forced to undergo the test. While he awaited the result, his income support was withdrawn. His family was forced to borrow money to buy food to subsist. Where is the sense or humanity in a system that works that way?
The worst aspect of the test is that it often hits people who are already facing a crisis. Twin 17-year-old sisters who recently sought advice in Newham both hold British passports and had lived in the UK with their father since 1994. Last year, their father died and after a habitual residence test interview, the sisters were refused income support. In addition to their bereavement, the Government forced them to face destitution.
When the Secretary of State set off in pursuit of back-packing benefit tourists at the Tory party conference, did he have in mind any of the people to whom I have referred? The answer is no—but those people and thousands like them are being hit by the test. The Government responded to their critics by saying that no one has devised a fairer measure that would make the same savings, but that argument is indefensible. It is absurd to say that a measure is good because it saves money, regardless of its ill effects on innocent people. It is like saying that the way to stop football hooliganism is to ban everyone from soccer grounds. If Ministers are really saying that they will do anything to cut the social security budget, irrespective of its effect on people who were not intended to be affected, they must accept that they will lose any claim to decency that they retain.
It is not true that critics of the test have not offered constructive proposals to refine it and to reduce its injustices while keeping loopholes to Euro-scroungers firmly closed. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux set out seven specific recommendations in its report—short of abolishing the test, which is what it and I believe should happen—to fulfil the objectives. The first three involve changes to secondary legislation. NACAB proposes, first, that benefit regulations should be amended so that those who are considered settled by immigration authorities are treated as habitually resident. Secondly, where a claimant is certified as having no other means of support, an appeal against a habitual residence decision must be held within four weeks. Thirdly, failed applicants should be paid income support pending their appeal.
In response to the first of those points, the Government told NACAB—I just received today the Government's response to its proposals—that under the European treaties it is not possible to discriminate on the basis of nationality. That is true within Europe and is why the regulation was framed in a rather convoluted way in the first place. The proposal is not that the Government discriminate in that way between citizens of European nations. NACAB points out that a person with settled status is, by definition, not an European economic area national, so no discrimination between member states can be involved.
On the second proposal, the Government implicitly concede that the tortuously slow processes of their appeal system cause hardship, but they argue that it would be unfair to relieve that hardship in habitual residence cases and not in others. We are talking about the means for people to subsist. Surely something must be done to speed the process up and end the extremely long periods that people must currently endure with no means of subsistence other than that gained from borrowing from friends.
In response to the third NACAB proposal, the Government told it:
The intention behind the habitual residence test is to curb abuse of the benefits system. It would be contradictory to deny these people benefit on one hand only to pay it on an emergency basis on the other.
The Department's logic is alarming. Whatever the merits of the arguments I am proposing, whether we believe the habitual residence test is right or wrong, I am sure that we can all agree that there are occasions when emergency aid should be provided while eligibility for long-term help is determined. In many cases there is reason to believe that an initial adjudication on habitual residence may be wrong, and the number of reversals on appeal prove that. Sometimes it is simply good governance to offer short-term, emergency help. Neither of those possibilities seems to be recognised by the Department in its response to the CAB report.
In addition to those three suggestions for changes in secondary legislation, the CAB report also offered three proposals concerning the collection of information on the effect of the habitual residence test. First, it proposed that information should be collated on the ethnic group of passed and failed test applicants. There is growing circumstantial evidence that black and Asian people are more likely to be subjected to the test than others. That is alarming.
Secondly, the CAB proposed that data should be gathered on the appeals process, including the overall number of appeals and how many are successful. Thirdly, it proposed that the time taken to process appeals should be monitored and published.
The Government told NACAB that they had no intention of collating information on those subjects. They argued that principally on the grounds of cost. Although no estimate of that cost had been made, or at least not to my knowledge, it is hard to believe that any extra cost could not be found in the £37 million saving that the Government claim to have made from introducing the test.
There is certainly a need for more information. Even those statistics that are available do not seem to be understood by the Department of Social Security. For example, in their response to NACAB, the Government assert:
the majority of people found not to be habitually resident are EEA nationals.
That is simply not true. On Government figures, only 36 per cent. are EEA nationals; that is confirmed by the new figures that the Minister has given me for March 1996 and by the cumulative figures from August 1994 to March 1996. Significantly fewer than 40 per cent. of those affected by the test are EEA nationals. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.
There is one other important matter that I want to raise. After we debated the subject in March last year, I asked the Minister to place the results of habitual residence tests every month in the Library of the House. I am grateful that he agreed to do that for the year 1995–96; I have asked him if he will continue to publish the details for the coming year, and I am glad that he has confirmed that he will do that—it is most helpful.
More information, however, is needed. It is little wonder that NACAB expressed its disappointment at the Government's response to its report, which was an impressive one. There are grave concerns about the operation of the test and the human hardship it causes my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who I am pleased to see in his place this evening. Critiques such as the one produced by NACAB are constructive and valuable, and I hope that the Government will respond in similar vein.
The national association has produced a devastating critique of the test. The Government's response has been weak and, in at least one respect, simply wrong. It is as if the Government are not taking seriously the points that have been made. I hope that they will give careful consideration to the future of the test before the damage becomes too great. I hope that the habitual residence test will be scrapped, because I am quite sure that if it is not, more and more hon. Members and others will be raising the serious problems that it causes in the weeks and months ahead.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on obtaining, for the second time in just over a year, an Adjournment debate to discuss this subject. It is a matter of considerable concern, and of general importance.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in identifying the problem of benefit tourists, had identified a problem that


required a solution. The question he asked was whether the solution implemented was the right one. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of percentages; it would perhaps assist the House if I gave the up-to-date absolute figures since August 1990, when the new arrangements came in. Sometimes absolute figures give a better impression than percentages.
These figures are to 31 March; answering oral questions on the last occasion, I gave figures to the end of February. Fourteen thousand European Economic Area nationals have passed, while 14, 032 have failed. Of British citizens, 95, 973 have passed; 9, 738 have failed. I cite those figures because it appears, by a factor of nine to one, that British citizens succeed—as one might have expected—in establishing themselves as habitually resident in Great Britain more easily than do people from other European countries.
It is not contested that the drawing up of a test to prevent benefit tourism was a very difficult task. The treaty of Rome obliges us not to discriminate on grounds of nationality. At first blush it might seem enormously attractive to the man in the street to give residents of several years in this country favoured status under some arrangement. Under European law, however, we simply cannot do that.
We picked on habitual residence, because it is a test embodied in the relevant European directive: 1408/71. It is a concept of European law that we are entitled—we believe, and so far we have been vindicated by the courts—to apply for the present purpose.
The hon. Member has not suggested how we should replace the test. He has rightly and properly said that there are some very hard and difficult examples of its application. They are bound to be sad and cause considerable anguish. The NACAB report—which, of course, I have read carefully, and which Ministers and officials have studied carefully—gives several detailed examples. I cannot comment upon the three specific cases in the hon. Member's constituency, for which he did not give names, because I do not have particulars. No doubt there are circumstances in which the test is not a happy test to apply.
Nevertheless, we are not prepared to entertain the situation that obtained in summer 1994, when larger and growing numbers of Europeans—Spaniards, especially, were cited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security—were coming to this country on holiday and claiming income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The news had got around in Europe, and more and more were coming. Unless and until something was done, the problem would not have diminished or remained static, but would have grown.
The NACAB report primarily—as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East emphasised—recommends rejection simpliciter of the habitual residence test, and I think that that is what the hon. Member would like to see. The report argues that labour market conditions, such as the tightening up of the availability test and the requirement actively to seek work—which will apply when the Jobseekers Act 1995 comes into force—would be sufficient. We are not satisfied that labour market conditions would be sufficient at all.
Some people came to this country for relatively short periods, and they enjoyed all the benefits that our welfare state provides. That was one-way traffic, because, when British nationals visited France or other European countries, they did not have the same kind of entitlement. The equivalent social assistance benefits in those countries are usually locally administered and highly discretionary.
The unique British feature, which the Labour Government introduced in 1966, was that supplementary benefit—later income support—was a matter of legal entitlement, provided that a person was in the United Kingdom and met the other conditions. Until we imposed habitual residence as an additional requirement, everyone was entitled to the benefit as a matter of right; that was what was so attractive about coming to this country, and it did not apply in reverse.
NACAB argues that we should simply abolish the test. We are not so persuaded. As for NACAB's secondary recommendations, which are designed as an alternative, we regret that either the totality of them is not sufficient or there are problems in some of them.
The first recommendation to which the hon. Member referred was the suggestion that people from third countries—that is, non-European Economic Area nationals or British citizens—recognised for settlement purposes in the United Kingdom for immigration status, should be treated automatically as habitually resident. On the face of it, that sounds plausible, until one realises that the recommendation would involve putting that category of persons in a better position than British citizens. I do not believe that that is likely to be generally acceptable.
The second proposal is to create a special class of appeal on such cases which must be heard within four weeks. I readily accept, and Ministers are concerned, that the independent tribunal service should dispose of appeals as quickly as may practically and properly be done. We wish to see the time taken from beginning to end of appeals speeded up, but whether a particular appeal or particular class of appeals should be expedited is essentially a judicial matter for application to the relevant tribunal at the relevant time.
It is easy for the hon. Member for Newham, North-East and myself, given the circumstances of especially sad and difficult cases, to say that they should have priority in the queue. But that is essentially a judicial matter, and we do not believe that it is appropriate that Ministers should interfere.
The other recommendations are perhaps properly described as subsidiary, and they relate to the collection of statistics. The Benefits Agency is fully aware of its responsibilities to ethnic minorities and for the delivery of the benefits, but we are trying to reduce the administrative costs of the Department, not to increase them. We do not see that there is an administrative need to record the statistics.
Similarly, the recommendation made on statistics on appeals seems plausible, until one realises that income support is a complex benefit. There are a number of conditions to be satisfied, as we all appreciate. But what are we measuring? The claimant may win on the issue of habitual residence and lose on some of the other many conditions.
We are talking about a matter of administration that would be expensive to bring up to date, if that were desired, to deal with the detail that has been requested.
We would find ourselves undertaking some form of manual, clerical, statistical sample. That is not entirely satisfactory.
I have dealt with the time that is taken to process appeals. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has special experience in these matters. We should never forget that all the most difficult cases, if they have not found their way to the hon. Gentleman's surgery, or mine, are likely to end up in the local CAB. It is a body that receives public assistance from Government and from local authorities. It performs an excellent job. It sees the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman at the hardest and sharpest points. It deals with human problems in individual cases.
As a Department, we have responsibility to the taxpayer. The lacuna in the argument so far presented by the hon. Gentleman, and by NACAB, is what to do to stop benefit tourism. If we abolished the habitual residence test, we would provide opportunities for fraud and exploitation of the system. That was the position before August 1994. It was catching on. People knew increasingly about the opportunities. How do we stop that?
We cannot discriminate in favour of British citizens, however much that may seem the simple, easy, logical, politically desirable, practical and humane solution, because of the restrictions of the treaty. What do we do? My right hon. Friend took the concept of habitual residence, which I readily accept is a complex idea. It is not something that can necessarily be simply applied, because it involves guidance, the expertise of the adjudicating officers, who are independent, and the appeals process.
There have been numbers of appeals. Being turned down matters a great deal. The law has a vagueness that sometimes attaches to European legal concepts. It is a concept that people want properly to test. Inevitably we shall have many appeals.
We are familiar with the test of domicile. The Inland Revenue has a test of ordinary residence, to ensure that it gets its tax out of us. Habitual residence was a slightly related and not entirely unfamiliar test. Inevitably, as I have said, there have been a number of appeals.
We have seen what we hope is the last word—at the moment it is—in the form of a decision by Commissioner Howell. It sets out some general guidance. It may or may not be binding, but that is a matter for the independent tribunal service, the commissioners and the courts to decide. It appears to give some general guidance on how the test should be applied.
The point in it, apart from distinguishing it from other legal concepts, is a practical consideration. A British citizen who has lived in this country for a long time is likely to be able more readily, easily and in a readily shorter period to re-establish habitual residence, if it has been lost, than someone who has never set foot in the country before, or someone who has done so only for a short and transitory period.
We readily accept that there will be some hard cases. We are driven to the conclusion, however, that there is nothing else in European law that we have yet heard of, or that anyone, to my knowledge, has suggested, that would prevent benefit tourism and at the same time produce a more favourable result for British citizens. The general figures show that, by nine to one—95,000 to 9,000-odd—British citizens pass the test. I accept that there are hard cases, and I have no doubt that each one of the 9,738 involves a human problem. We suggest that that is a test which, in practical administrative terms, does the best possible.
I summarise the matter as follows. There was a problem, as the hon. Gentleman has fairly recognised. We had to find a solution within the European treaty, and we believe that we have done so. It is a solution for which the vires have been tested, and, as litigation presently stands, it has been upheld.
I accept that the habitual residence test has problems in terms of its exact meaning, but it appears, as the case law evolves, that we are getting a clearer picture, and that the adjudicating authorities are getting a clearer understanding of how properly to operate the test as they receive guidance from higher appeals to tribunals and the commissioners.
We believe that, at the end of it all, what we have implemented is as fair as any system can be to the British citizen and, at the same time, protects the interests of the British taxpayer and prevents the abuse of benefit tourism that we had.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has read out to the House on several occasions—I shall not weary us at this late hour with the extracts from the Spanish and other continental press—evidence that the fact that London was an easy touch had become generally appreciated. That was not a problem to which we could simply turn a blind eye, and we could not just try to tighten up the administration of fraud, which is what the NACAB report ultimately suggests. We had to do something more than that.
We decided, because we were advised that it was the sensible solution—and, as far as we can yet see, the only solution in European law—to introduce the habitual residence test. That is working. I cannot say that it is working perfectly, but, in a less than perfect world, given the restraints of the European treaty, it appears to be working at least as well as anything for which either the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has contended.
The hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Speaker, will not be surprised to know that I have received numerous letters from hon. Members on both sides, asking the simple question, "Is there some better way in which to do it?" We are not yet aware of it.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.